I've been speaking it nearly 40 years...

Yes, your way is correct. However, the omission of the word 'for' in a sentence like this is not unusual.

Jackson6612
I see a certain member has written the following sentence as:

English is my first language; I have been speaking it nearly 40 years I'm currently learning Japanese and need all the help I can get!

I would have written it as:

English is my first

YankeeYes, your way is correct. However, the omission of the word 'for' in a sentence like this is not unusual.

Wow, I really didn't know that! Grammar Books keep on telling students to use "for" and "since"... Does that mean that these are ok?
Where have you been? I've been waiting two hours!
I've been studying psycology almost three year

Kooyeen

YankeeYes, your way is correct. However, the omission of the word 'for' in a sentence like this is not unusual.

Wow, I really didn't know that! Grammar Books keep on telling students to use "for" and "since"... Does that mean that these are ok?
Where have you been? I've been waiting two hours!
I've been stud

Gencebay90To me, these sentences are grammatically wrong but in everyday English such usages may be possible

Thanks Gencebay, but those who know me pretty well also know that consider I grammatically ok everything that is possible in everyday English.

Hi Kooyeen (and Jackson)

I wouldn't recommend omitting the word 'for' in a formal context, but I don't think this particular omission is too unusual in an informal context.

Kooyeen, the only one that sounded off was the one about Microsoft - not just because I don't believe you're buddies with Mr. Gates...

I think it's because you have that "for Microsoft" phrase in there, with the preposition. If you just said "I've been working there ten years" that would sound natural enough.

(Note though that I don't disagree at all with the prior comments on w

Grammar GeekI think it's because you have that "for Microsoft" phrase in there, with the preposition. If you just said "I've been working there ten years" that would sound natural enough.
Hmm, yeah, that makes sense. Actually, that one sounded kind of odd to me too...

Grammar Geek(Note though that I don't disagree at all with the prior comments

It's odd. The omission of for makes no difference in many cases, and yet there are times when it seems so wrong.

?You've been asking questions on this forum six months. [Ugh!]

I wonder what properties of certain sentences sanction the omission of for.

I'm speculating that an intervening prepositional phrase requires the for.

Let's come up with one that violates my "rule" so we can try something else