omit preposition in a prepositional phrase used as an adverb

Question

"A few month every year, I would help John"
or
"For a few month every year, I would help John."

In this sentence preposition "for" is omitted in "a few months every year," which modifies the verb "help."

It is similar in meaning to "I would help John a few months every year."

While both versions sound fine, how is the grammatical construction of the 1st version without preposition is justified (rule that governs it)?

Why should/shouldn't be a comma in the sentence?

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

OP again. The post is for American English usage.

Anonymous · Answer

Both sentences are incorrect. The following are okay:

A few months every year, I would help John.

For a few months every year, I would help John.

If you wanted to do some hair-splitting, you might say that the first sentence is not actually the second sentence with "for" omitted. Rather, you might say that the two sentences denote ever so slightly different situations: the first sentence meaning that a few months of every year were reserved for helping John - and the implication here is that it was the same months every year in which this help was delivered; and the second sentence having a similar meaning, but here the implication is that it was not necessarily the same months in every year in which the help was delivered.

Anonymous · Answer

Apologies, typo in OP. I meant "months." The question is about the issue that the 1st version has a noun phrase "a few months every year" (without preposition) that acts as an adverb. How is it grammatically broken down and justified?

A few months every year, I would help John.
or,
For a few months every year, I would help John.

Anonymous · Answer

By omitting "for" you change the sense of the sentence ever so slightly:  from a random few months every year, to the same few months every year.  This is why these two different constructions came into being in English:  to express this nuance.

Anonymous · Answer

Assuming for a moment this distinction in the sense of the sentence without "for" does exist, how would you break the sentence down grammar-wise?

I see your point about the nuance but there does not seem to be any grounds in the literature in american english for support of the notion that such slight distinction does exist. Can you point to evidence of this distinction? If one says "A couple of days every week, X does Y" it does in no way suggest to me that the days on which X does Y are limited to specific days of the week. I would think that it means the same as "For a couple of days every week, X does Y."

Anonymous · Answer

The grammatical explanation is that with "for" you have an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying the verb "help." Without "for" you have the same thing, essentially, but in an elliptical construction.

As to why the "for" was dropped over the years, one might say that this was simply for convenience, to have a more compact construction, but there is also the notion of a very slight change in sense, which is all but unnoticeable at a cursory glance - and you wouldn't find any of this in a grammar textbook; textbooks can cover only a minute fraction of the language, the most basic constructions; the rest, a limitless ocean of usage, has to be learned by experience.

The pair of sentences, "A couple of days every week, I would help John." and "For a couple of days every week, I would help John.", have a similar distinction, the first implying the same days every week and the second implying random days.

Anonymous · Answer

OP here. Thanks for posting comments. It is useful to get comments from other native speakers. It is elliptical reduction but one which for formal English seems to be without a sound basis  For example conjunction reduction has been considered acceptable style is formal written english as long as the parallelism between clauses is maintained. This is not conjunction reduction though. As a native speaker of english I simply don't hear any distinction between these forms in American English; there doesn't exist any. This could be something specific to AmE. If a nuance has gained wide acceptance in the language then it begins to be a part of some style guide or common usage in well known publications. This is not the case with the said nuance. Unless there is evidence that points to acceptability of this nuance, it sounds like a personal opinion where one's ear may think there is a nuance but it has no acceptability from the language point of view.

Anonymous · Answer

Anyone knowledgeable who can comment?

omit preposition in a prepositional phrase used as an adverb

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions