Skip to main content
Notice removed Draw attention by CommunityBot
Bounty Ended with Araucaria - Him's answer chosen by CommunityBot
Notice added Draw attention by FumbleFingers
Bounty Started worth 200 reputation by FumbleFingers
seems an obvious slip to me, given the question and the sentence referred to
Source Link

I came across these two examples, given to illustrate 'a case' where the inclusion of the preposition for is considered optional in the paper "Acquisition of Preposition Deletion by Non-native Speakers of English" by the authors Jae-Min Kim and Gil-Soon Ahn (in §2, on p.3):

a. We have lived here (for) 12 years.

b. I've studied English (for) ten years.

Though I have no problems with either version of the (a) sentence, omitting the pronounpreposition in (b) sounds unacceptable to me.

Is this regional?

Is acceptability influenced by

  1. the size of the DO (/locative / PP / ...) between the verb and the time phrase
  2. the actual verb used

?

Please note: The referenced paper is very useful, but contains a few expressions that need minor corrections – possibly translation errors.

I came across these two examples, given to illustrate 'a case' where the inclusion of the preposition for is considered optional in the paper "Acquisition of Preposition Deletion by Non-native Speakers of English" by the authors Jae-Min Kim and Gil-Soon Ahn (in §2, on p.3):

a. We have lived here (for) 12 years.

b. I've studied English (for) ten years.

Though I have no problems with either version of the (a) sentence, omitting the pronoun in (b) sounds unacceptable to me.

Is this regional?

Is acceptability influenced by

  1. the size of the DO (/locative / PP / ...) between the verb and the time phrase
  2. the actual verb used

?

Please note: The referenced paper is very useful, but contains a few expressions that need minor corrections – possibly translation errors.

I came across these two examples, given to illustrate 'a case' where the inclusion of the preposition for is considered optional in the paper "Acquisition of Preposition Deletion by Non-native Speakers of English" by the authors Jae-Min Kim and Gil-Soon Ahn (in §2, on p.3):

a. We have lived here (for) 12 years.

b. I've studied English (for) ten years.

Though I have no problems with either version of the (a) sentence, omitting the preposition in (b) sounds unacceptable to me.

Is this regional?

Is acceptability influenced by

  1. the size of the DO (/locative / PP / ...) between the verb and the time phrase
  2. the actual verb used

?

Please note: The referenced paper is very useful, but contains a few expressions that need minor corrections – possibly translation errors.

added 13 characters in body; added 3 characters in body
Source Link
Dan Bron
  • 28.5k
  • 17
  • 102
  • 140

I came across these two examples, given to illustrate 'a case' where the inclusion of the preposition for is considered optional in the paper "Acquisition of Preposition Deletion by Non-native Speakers of English" by the authors Jae-Min Kim and Gil-Soon Ahn (in §2, on p.3):

a. We have lived here (for) 12 years.

b. I've studied English (for) ten years.

Though I have no problems with either version of the (a) sentence, omitting the pronoun in (b) sounds unacceptable to me.

Is this regional?

Is acceptability influenced by

  1. the size of the DO (/locative / PP / ...) between the verb and the time phrase
  2. the actual verb used

?

Please note: The referenced paper is very useful, but contains a few expressions that need minor corrections – possibly translation errors.

I came across these two examples, given to illustrate 'a case' where the inclusion of the preposition for is considered optional in the paper "Acquisition of Preposition Deletion by Non-native Speakers of English" by the authors Jae-Min Kim and Gil-Soon Ahn:

a. We have lived here (for) 12 years.

b. I've studied English (for) ten years.

Though I have no problems with either version of the (a) sentence, omitting the pronoun in (b) sounds unacceptable to me.

Is this regional?

Is acceptability influenced by

  1. the size of the DO (/locative / PP / ...) between the verb and the time phrase
  2. the actual verb used

?

Please note: The referenced paper is very useful, but contains a few expressions that need minor corrections – possibly translation errors.

I came across these two examples, given to illustrate 'a case' where the inclusion of the preposition for is considered optional in the paper "Acquisition of Preposition Deletion by Non-native Speakers of English" by the authors Jae-Min Kim and Gil-Soon Ahn (in §2, on p.3):

a. We have lived here (for) 12 years.

b. I've studied English (for) ten years.

Though I have no problems with either version of the (a) sentence, omitting the pronoun in (b) sounds unacceptable to me.

Is this regional?

Is acceptability influenced by

  1. the size of the DO (/locative / PP / ...) between the verb and the time phrase
  2. the actual verb used

?

Please note: The referenced paper is very useful, but contains a few expressions that need minor corrections – possibly translation errors.

keep it pretty :)
Source Link
Dan Bron
  • 28.5k
  • 17
  • 102
  • 140

I came across these two examples, given to illustrate 'a case' where the inclusion of the preposition for is considered optional in the paper "Acquisition of Preposition Deletion by Non-native Speakers of English" by the authors Jae-Min Kim and Gil-Soon Ahn:

a. We have lived here (for) 12 years.

b. I've studied English (for) ten years.

Though I have no problems with either version of the (a) sentence, omitting the pronoun in (b) sounds unacceptable to me.

Is this regional?

Is acceptability influenced by

  1. the size of the DO (/locative / PP / ...) between the verb and the time phrase
  2. the actual verb used

?

[The article is very useful, but contains a few expressions that need minor corrections – possibly translation errors.]Please note: The referenced paper is very useful, but contains a few expressions that need minor corrections – possibly translation errors.

I came across these two examples, given to illustrate 'a case' where the inclusion of the preposition for is considered optional in the paper "Acquisition of Preposition Deletion by Non-native Speakers of English" by the authors Jae-Min Kim and Gil-Soon Ahn:

a. We have lived here (for) 12 years.

b. I've studied English (for) ten years.

Though I have no problems with either version of the (a) sentence, omitting the pronoun in (b) sounds unacceptable to me.

Is this regional?

Is acceptability influenced by

  1. the size of the DO (/locative / PP / ...) between the verb and the time phrase
  2. the actual verb used

?

[The article is very useful, but contains a few expressions that need minor corrections – possibly translation errors.]

I came across these two examples, given to illustrate 'a case' where the inclusion of the preposition for is considered optional in the paper "Acquisition of Preposition Deletion by Non-native Speakers of English" by the authors Jae-Min Kim and Gil-Soon Ahn:

a. We have lived here (for) 12 years.

b. I've studied English (for) ten years.

Though I have no problems with either version of the (a) sentence, omitting the pronoun in (b) sounds unacceptable to me.

Is this regional?

Is acceptability influenced by

  1. the size of the DO (/locative / PP / ...) between the verb and the time phrase
  2. the actual verb used

?

Please note: The referenced paper is very useful, but contains a few expressions that need minor corrections – possibly translation errors.

added 131 characters in body
Source Link
Edwin Ashworth
  • 87.2k
  • 12
  • 154
  • 272
Loading
capitalize first word in title
Source Link
Dan Bron
  • 28.5k
  • 17
  • 102
  • 140
Loading
Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackEnglish/status/504221157118443520
deleted 2 characters in body; edited title
Source Link
Edwin Ashworth
  • 87.2k
  • 12
  • 154
  • 272
Loading
Source Link
Edwin Ashworth
  • 87.2k
  • 12
  • 154
  • 272
Loading