The city has (for) two month lain waste
The followings are of my own making.
1. The city has two month lain waste after the war.
2. The city has lain waste after the war two month.
I know the preposition "for" can be omitted when meaning a duration.
But I don't sure if I could put an "for"-omitted adverbial phrase into the middle of a sentence.
So for such a reason, I'd like to know which is right- #1 , #2, or #1 ?
Thank you in advance for your help
Top answer
For two month s since the war, the city has lain waste. The city has lain waste for two month s since the war.
- For two month s since the war, the city has lain waste.
- The city has lain waste for two month s since the war.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
For two months since the war, the city has lain waste.
The city has lain waste for two months since the war.
0I don't think you are using "lay waste" correctly. It means to destroy completely. It does not mean to lie in ruins.
e.g.
Nuclear weapons can lay waste to entire metropolitan areas.
The city lay in ruins for two months after the war before a massive reconstruction project began.
The city lay in ruins for two months after the war before the residents
0
Related Questions