Walk for

1. My preference is without the 'for' - but it doesn't make too much difference.

2. With the 'for' - and this time it does make a big difference.

Thank you, nona!

But, I need more of your help.

- 2. With the 'for' - and this time it does make a big difference.
I heard there is no significant difference in meaning.
Am I misinformed?
If so, correct me please!

Enjoy the disappearing snow!

I don't see a difference myself, in either (1) or (2)-- they all indicate duration-- but it may be differently viewed in BrE.

I'm a native North American speaker, as is Mister Micawber, but, I agree with Nona's BrE intuition.

1. He walked (for) three miles (to our house). Distance "for" is optional
2. He walked for three hours (to our house). Duration "for" is required

I believe the distribution above has to do with semantics. Both "miles" and "hours" express

Hello Nona, MrM, and Cassi.

I think it is my bad habit to chime in every kind of topic but I wondered and am still now wondering why Nona said there is a big difference between "He walked three hours"(Google hits 495 sites) and "He walked for three hours" (Google hits 525 sites). When I hear "He walked for three hours", I would take it as "He continued to walk for three hours without ta

Well, what if we omitted the quantifier "three"?

EX: He walked *hours yesterday.

Do you see the problem? "hours" cannot be walked. That's the BrE intuition I seem to share with Nona. As for our good friend Mister Micawber, I can see how adding the quantifier would make it seem acceptable, if we assume 'three hours' functions as a noun, like "He paid three dollars):

But 'I walked hours and hours yesterday, and never found the studio'.

Well, at least I found some sort of corroboration-- Swan says that 'in an informal style, for is often left out in expressions that say how long something lasts.'

I really like your google stats, Paco, but I can't see anything in the 'continuous' vs 'with rest breaks' theory of 'for' omission--

I think that whether distance or temporal duration, 'for' is optional.
One thing I'd like to add is that, with regard to duration, 'for' is mandatory in negative sentences. This is what I read somewhere.

We waited (for) two hours. (optional)
We didn't wait two hours. (x)
We didn't wait for two hours. (o)

We have been married (for) ten years. (optional)
We h

Well, now, that's interesting, Komountain.

'We haven't had a holiday in ten years.'
'I hadn't driven two miles when I got a flat tire.'

Where do these sentences fit in, I wonder?

Hi, MM.

Your first example uses 'in' instead of 'for.' Though they are conceptually the same, I wish to focus on 'for.' My personal grammar-related data support what I said in my post. Well, there could be dubious sources out there from which to glean false information on English. But I don't think you would like to say, 'You have got totally wrong information.' Now, I wonder if the se