That is from - The faraway tree.

Why is for not necessary there? Will it be wrong if I use for there?


We have a tendency to cut corners where possible. In this sentence "for" is implied and therefore redundant. There is no confusion over meaning. It wouldn't be a problem to include "for", but it's not necessary.

They've been here (for) a long time

Doesn't require a preposition either.

You might find some useful information in this similar question.

| improve this answer | |
  • Because english doesn't seem to have fixed rules I find learning it hard. I am confused. How to you learn a language which doesn't have proper rules ? – Aquarius_Girl Jun 19 '15 at 15:13
  • Answer: with difficulty. I'm a native speaker but I learn something new every day, and probably will for the rest of my life. – JMB Jun 19 '15 at 15:17
  • @Aquarius English has rules. One rule is you don't need for in the sentence you ask about. Therefore the for is not "missing," as you call it. You also might want to consider shortening your user name. – user6951 Jun 19 '15 at 15:29

Normally indications of time length are done with for+time length. "for" can be dropped in indications which are very frequently used.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.