0
Anonymous Posted 16 years ago
Grammar

Past perfect continuous?? to "for" or not to "for," that's the question

Hi, please help!!

I am teaching English at a Japanese school and a multiple choice test offered these 2 options:

1. Tom had not studied in Japan two weeks before he got homesick.
2. Tom had not studied in Japan for two weeks before he got homesick.

Can someone please explain why the former (#1) is the correct answer????

Thank you!
:-) Tara-sensei
  

Top answer

I am a native English speaker and I find this a pretty obscure and difficult question. It is tough to expect English learners to answer it, I think. I see no grammatical reason why #1 should be preferred, and I do not consider #2 to be actually wrong.

— Mr Wordy

  • I am a native English speaker and I find this a pretty obscure and difficult question.
  • It is tough to expect English learners to answer it, I think.
  • I see no grammatical reason why #1 should be preferred, and I do not consider #2 to be actually wrong.
  • However, for no apparent reason, the word "for" is often omitted in this sentence pattern.
  • "
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

3 Answers
0
I am a native English speaker and I find this a pretty obscure and difficult question. It is tough to expect English learners to answer it, I think. I see no grammatical reason why #1 should be preferred, and I do not consider #2 to be actually wrong. However, for no apparent reason, the word "for" is often omitted in this sentence pattern. For example:

"We haven't been together five min
0
0
Hi,



Both are correct. The 'for' can be omitted.



Clive
0
0
AnonymousCan someone please explain why the former (#1) is the correct answer??
Possibly because "for" is more often absent than present in the construction

[past perfect] [amount of time] before [past].

This is not the best test item I've ever seen.
0

Related Questions