0
Kenny1999 Posted 15 years ago
Grammar
For many hours? many hours?
I need to learn more precise English grammar because of some reasons.
which one is better?
A. I have been to New York for three times.
B. I have been to New York three times.
I think A is correct. However, from my memory, it is possible in some cases to use "for three times" or "for X times" or "for three years .. .for three nights...etc)
Could anyone familiar with English help me?
Thanks!
which one is better?
A. I have been to New York for three times.
B. I have been to New York three times.
I think A is correct. However, from my memory, it is possible in some cases to use "for three times" or "for X times" or "for three years .. .for three nights...etc)
Could anyone familiar with English help me?
Thanks!
Top answer
Hi Kenny, I'm not the person you're looking for; but in my opinion B is the correct one. A sounds really weird to me. When you say I have been to NYC three times.
- Hi Kenny, I'm not the person you're looking for; but in my opinion B is the correct one.
- A sounds really weird to me.
- When you say I have been to NYC three times.
- That means you're not there now.
- If you add the word "for", it is supposed to mean you are still there but you're not.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
Hi Kenny,
I'm not the person you're looking for; but in my opinion B is the correct one. A sounds really weird to me.
When you say I have been to NYC three times. That means you're not there now. If you add the word "for", it is supposed to mean you are still there but you're not. just because of the word "times". If you are there now, you better say "I've been in NYC for three y
I'm not the person you're looking for; but in my opinion B is the correct one. A sounds really weird to me.
When you say I have been to NYC three times. That means you're not there now. If you add the word "for", it is supposed to mean you are still there but you're not. just because of the word "times". If you are there now, you better say "I've been in NYC for three y
00
Hi kenny:
I think A and B have differnt meanings becuase 'I have been to New York three time' express that I visited New York three time in my life time. ( It is an experience. )
For option A, I think it is incorrect because there should be a duration after the word 'for'
For example: I have been to New York for 3 hours. ( This imply you are in New York when you say. )
I think A and B have differnt meanings becuase 'I have been to New York three time' express that I visited New York three time in my life time. ( It is an experience. )
For option A, I think it is incorrect because there should be a duration after the word 'for'
For example: I have been to New York for 3 hours. ( This imply you are in New York when you say. )
00
ok
maybe I have got something wrong, but I really remember that in some occassion the people don't use "for", maybe a definite times e.g. three times, maybe an indefinite times e.g. several times / many times. I am not sure
I hope to make my grammar as precise as possible. Thanks
maybe I have got something wrong, but I really remember that in some occassion the people don't use "for", maybe a definite times e.g. three times, maybe an indefinite times e.g. several times / many times. I am not sure
I hope to make my grammar as precise as possible. Thanks
00
Hi,
B is correct, because you can't use "for" for x time, you only use "for" for a period, ex: 3years, 3 months....
B is correct, because you can't use "for" for x time, you only use "for" for a period, ex: 3years, 3 months....
0
Related Questions