What’s the difference between either for or in ‘as are in the following examples?

• Bill hasn’t taken a vacation in years. Apparently his husband is addicted to drugs.
• In his younger years Jack will not continue to go to school.
• I hadn’t seen Mary for 3 weeks, until she finally decided to show up. She finally showed up.

There is no difference in grammatical quality. All 3 sentences are grammatical, with either for or in.

There is no difference in meaning. In all the sentences described by Ellie, for, or in, the situation occurred with or for.

What is the difference between syntactic affordances and predicates? If with an indefinite durative temporal phrase ( in weeks, in two days, in donkey’s years, in a long time, etc. ), is a Negative Polarity Item. In two days is restricted to negative contexts, while for two days has no such restriction.

What types of examples are above negative. I’m struggling with removing the null argument fromn’t. Why does this matter?

Is there any way to illustrate the sentences in For works fine.?

• Bill has been on vacation for 2 years. (a very long vacation)
• Jack has been to school for eight days. (By the way, he was able to swim, he hasn’t slept for a week) I had seen Mary for
• three weeks and had she never left, but she was an innkeeper. After. I stayed behind because of her physical defect. (indicates frequent or continuous contact)

But all the ones with i are ungrammatical, and have no discernible meaning, and are thus “worrying”.
* Jack has been to school for

• three days now. Is he in normal English?
• Bill hasn’t taken any vacations in over a year, but took a vacation in 6 months. Is he in better shape then I felt he would be?
• I had not seen Mary in three weeks.

In the negative, there’s two ways to refer to duration, with in and for.
In a negative context, no, the system doesn’t work the same way. Negation is complex.

The phrase ‘in two years’ is often used in words, but I disagree with certain semantics. The meaning of this phrase is obviously not semantic. Leveraging the difference in meaning might require nuanced poetic use, but I think not. For past tense, negative constructions (as in in “Bill hasn’t taken a vacation in/for 2

• years”), ‘.. in 2 years’ means’at any time in the past 2 years’; ‘…
• for 2 years’ means’since sometime prior to the past couple year’.

What does it mean when you say something what actually makes you change your name?

The phrase ‘in two years’ is often used in words, but I disagree with certain semantics. The meaning of this phrase is obviously not semantic. Leveraging the difference in meaning might require nuanced poetic use, but I think not. For past tense, negative constructions (as in in “Bill hasn’t taken a vacation in/for 2

• years”), ‘.. in 2 years’ means’at any time in the past 2 years’; ‘…
• for 2 years’ means’since sometime prior to the past couple year’.

What does it mean when you say something what actually makes you change your name?

What’s the difference between either for or in ‘as are in the following examples?

• Bill hasn’t taken a vacation in years. Apparently his husband is addicted to drugs.
• In his younger years Jack will not continue to go to school.
• I hadn’t seen Mary for 3 weeks, until she finally decided to show up. She finally showed up.

There is no difference in grammatical quality. All 3 sentences are grammatical, with either for or in.

There is no difference in meaning. In all the sentences described by Ellie, for, or in, the situation occurred with or for.

What is the difference between syntactic affordances and predicates? If with an indefinite durative temporal phrase ( in weeks, in two days, in donkey’s years, in a long time, etc. ), is a Negative Polarity Item. In two days is restricted to negative contexts, while for two days has no such restriction.

What types of examples are above negative. I’m struggling with removing the null argument fromn’t. Why does this matter?

Is there any way to illustrate the sentences in For works fine.?

• Bill has been on vacation for 2 years. (a very long vacation)
• Jack has been to school for eight days. (By the way, he was able to swim, he hasn’t slept for a week) I had seen Mary for
• three weeks and had she never left, but she was an innkeeper. After. I stayed behind because of her physical defect. (indicates frequent or continuous contact)

But all the ones with i are ungrammatical, and have no discernible meaning, and are thus “worrying”.
* Jack has been to school for

• three days now. Is he in normal English?
• Bill hasn’t taken any vacations in over a year, but took a vacation in 6 months. Is he in better shape then I felt he would be?
• I had not seen Mary in three weeks.

In the negative, there’s two ways to refer to duration, with in and for.
In a negative context, no, the system doesn’t work the same way. Negation is complex.

The phrase ‘in two years’ is often used in words, but I disagree with certain semantics. The meaning of this phrase is obviously not semantic. Leveraging the difference in meaning might require nuanced poetic use, but I think not. For past tense, negative constructions (as in in “Bill hasn’t taken a vacation in/for 2

• years”), ‘.. in 2 years’ means’at any time in the past 2 years’; ‘…
• for 2 years’ means’since sometime prior to the past couple year’.

What does it mean when you say something what actually makes you change your name?

The phrase ‘in two years’ is often used in words, but I disagree with certain semantics. The meaning of this phrase is obviously not semantic. Leveraging the difference in meaning might require nuanced poetic use, but I think not. For past tense, negative constructions (as in in “Bill hasn’t taken a vacation in/for 2

• years”), ‘.. in 2 years’ means’at any time in the past 2 years’; ‘…
• for 2 years’ means’since sometime prior to the past couple year’.

What does it mean when you say something what actually makes you change your name?

If period is time periods are time periods, then period should be time periods. This use of ‘in’ means ‘within’ (during a period? Since time was never the recipient of anything, ‘for’ can be overloaded to mean ‘during’ and ‘to’ was once overloaded to mean ‘until’ which meant ‘until’.

If period is time periods are time periods, then period should be time periods. This use of ‘in’ means ‘within’ (during a period? Since time was never the recipient of anything, ‘for’ can be overloaded to mean ‘during’ and ‘to’ was once overloaded to mean ‘until’ which meant ‘until’.

The phrase ‘in two years’ is often used in words, but I disagree with certain semantics. The meaning of this phrase is obviously not semantic. Leveraging the difference in meaning might require nuanced poetic use, but I think not. For past tense, negative constructions (as in in “Bill hasn’t taken a vacation in/for 2

• years”), ‘.. in 2 years’ means’at any time in the past 2 years’; ‘…
• for 2 years’ means’since sometime prior to the past couple year’.

What does it mean when you say something what actually makes you change your name?

The phrase ‘in two years’ is often used in words, but I disagree with certain semantics. The meaning of this phrase is obviously not semantic. Leveraging the difference in meaning might require nuanced poetic use, but I think not. For past tense, negative constructions (as in in “Bill hasn’t taken a vacation in/for 2

• years”), ‘.. in 2 years’ means’at any time in the past 2 years’; ‘…
• for 2 years’ means’since sometime prior to the past couple year’.

What does it mean when you say something what actually makes you change your name?