Timeline for What is the difference between "I learned to drive in 6 months" & "I learned to drive for 6 months"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 23, 2021 at 22:15 | answer | added | Frank Schwieterman | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 16, 2020 at 6:24 | answer | added | Acccumulation | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 3, 2017 at 0:09 | vote | accept | Tom | ||
| Oct 2, 2017 at 18:31 | comment | added | Robbie Goodwin | They're such different ideas, they shouldn't be compared. I learned to drive for six months is simply inappropriate. If you want to put it that way, you need I studied driving for six months | |
| Oct 1, 2017 at 9:07 | answer | added | Mari-Lou A | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 1, 2017 at 8:52 | comment | added | Tom | @Mari-LouA, "for" is so obvious. That is it expresses how long something lasts. That is why I don't mention "for" a lot! | |
| Oct 1, 2017 at 8:51 | comment | added | Henry | I think the contrast is clearer between "I learned German in 6 days" and "I learned German for 6 days". In the first case, it seems I am clever and German is easy, and now I can speak German. In the second, I went to classes but perhaps I am too stupid and German is too difficult so I stopped | |
| Oct 1, 2017 at 8:47 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | Excellent research on the meaning and usage of in, but what happened with for? | |
| Oct 1, 2017 at 8:41 | history | asked | Tom | CC BY-SA 3.0 |