0
Linguaphile Posted 19 years ago
Grammar
(for) the first/second time
Gerry had just had back surgery for the third time in two years. (Longman)
Does the lack of "for" change anything?
Does the lack of "for" change anything?
Top answer
Yes, to me the sentence simply sounds wrong without the word 'for'. You could say this, however: It was the third time in two years that Gerry had had back surgery .
- Yes, to me the sentence simply sounds wrong without the word 'for'.
- You could say this, however: It was the third time in two years that Gerry had had back surgery .
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
Yes, to me the sentence simply sounds wrong without the word 'for'.
You could say this, however:
It was the third time in two years that Gerry had had back surgery.
You could say this, however:
It was the third time in two years that Gerry had had back surgery.
0
Related Questions