the omission of "for"

You may see this kind of phrase used interchangeably with or without "for". With "longer", my feeling is that it is better left out. Contrast "stay here (for) at least another year", where "for" is more justified, in my opinion.

Ah, I see!!! That explains it:-) Thank you very much for your explanation:-)

GPY With "longer", my feeling is that it is better left out. Contrast "stay here (for) at least another year", where "for" is more justified, in my opinion.

I am not sure whether I agree with GPY or not, which suggests that it's not important whether you you use 'for' or not.

Some phrases related to "time" require the use of "for" as in "I've been in Japan for 10 years," right? I wonder why some phrases require "for" as opposed to those which doesn't.

teacherJapanSome phrases related to "time" require the use of "for" as in "I've been in Japan for 10 years," right?

In fact "for" can be omitted there too, though I think it would be more usual to include it.

Ah, I see. I didn't know about that, maybe because most grammar books published here in Japan are very vague about omissions, which is kind of frustrating. :-( I consider myself lucky though, because I get to ask you guys questions I am craving to know the answer to:-)

Thank you very much again:-)