I got into arguments using
"Wait for me for a second"
is it actually Wait For me For a second or Wait Me For a second
What is the correct way of delivering the idea behind it?
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
Taken from Cambridge Dict.:
Wait means
stay in the same place or not do something until something else happens
so it doesn't make much sense to say wait me for a second.
However, it does make sense, and actually conveys your idea if you say
Wait for me for a second.
The page I mentioned also provides a general rule you can use to avoid making such mistakes:
When we use a direct object after wait, we have to use wait for.
So, wait for me(object) for a second is correct.
-
the problem I with the sentence is that, it is kind of odd to use for twice in the sentence.– RAWOKATOCommented Dec 28, 2020 at 18:32
-
3@RAWOKATO "Wait for me for a second" is completely grammatically correct. You could also say "Wait a second for me".– MohsenCommented Dec 28, 2020 at 18:39
-
There is no problem with repeating a little word like for: it is quite natural as you wrote it. Commented Dec 28, 2020 at 20:38
-
@Mohsen: In my view, it's not very helpful explaining this sort of issue in terms of meaning, because there is no intrinsic reason why wait shouldn't take a direct object, as it does in some languages (eg French, attendre. Consider also that expect does take a direct object). I think it's simpler just to say that, for no particular reason, wait doesn't. Commented Dec 28, 2020 at 20:43
In casual speech we can omit 'for' before a period of time, so 'wait for me a second' and 'wait for me for a second' are equivalent. Using 'for a second' is slightly more formal but may be felt to be unnecessary repetition of 'for'. Likewise 'I've waited a year for you' and 'I've waited for a year for you.'
answered Dec 28, 2020 at 20:10
I think the right way to say it is "Wait for me for a second", you could also say "Wait for me a second."
