Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: It's years

Salve,
    secondo voi quale suona meglio?
"It's years I have had a good holiday"
oppure
"It's years I had a good holiday"
grazie


Cos'e'  la traduzione italiana?  Sono anni che non faccio una vacanza?
I haven't had a good/nice vacation in years.  
bye
ari

gcar...@ssfusd.k12.ca.us
 ha scritto:

How about "it's ages since I last had a good vacation"?

 How about "it's ages since I last had a good vacation"?
It sucks.
I'd say: "I haven't had a good holiday for ages"
Ma attendo pareri più esperti.
-- 
mail to: pinko(at)
people.it


Yes, that's even better.
bye
ari

 Ma attendo pareri più esperti.
I think yours sucks more.
E'  "in" ages, non "for" ages.  Inoltre c'e differenza tra holiday e
vacation.  Per Holiday di solito si intende un giiorno festivo come
July 4th, Labor Day, Thankshgiving, etc.  A me pare che nel post
originale si intendesse "vacanza".
bye
ari

 Ma attendo pareri più esperti.
I think yours sucks more.


 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:1164830898....@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

Ciao "ari". Sarebbe sbagliato "I haven't had a good vacation for years"?
grazie
Cla. 

 originale si intendesse "vacanza".
Io ho sempre detto holiday per vacanza e non ho mai sentito dire
vacation.
Nel mio dizionario sotto 'vacation' trovo:
1. A period of the year when universities, colleges or law courts
    are officially closed.
2. US for holiday.
Quindi penso che in BrEng vacation abbia solo un uso formale e
specifico.
-- 
mail to: pinko(at)
people.it

In case you haven't heard enough, here are some uses:
I haven't [have not] had a good vacation in ages.
It's [It has] been years since I had a good vacation.
We've [we have] been taking this same trip for ages.
--Jeremy in California


Please tell Pinko about the "in" vs "for" deal.
ari

gcar...@ssfusd.k12.ca.us
 ha scritto:

Yes, tell me. I'm interested in.
I haven't had a good vacation for ages.
Is that wrong?
-- 
mail to: pinko(at)
people.it


As far as I know, that's not something a native speaker would say, at
least not in California where I am.  I have always stressed the fact
that my knowledge of the  English language is limited to American
English and more specifically to English as it is spoken in California.
 I don't know rules or at least I know very few, so I wouldn't be able
to give you a rule, but here are some examples:
I haven't seen him in years.
She hasn't called me in weeks.
We haven't had a good cup of coffee in days!
It hasn't rained in months.
I would not use "for" in any of these sentences, but I don't exclude
that "for" may be correct in some other part of the globe.
As far as Swan goes, I have seen references made to his book and it
always amazes me how people take his word as Gospel.  I have found more
than once that his rules do not apply to English as it is spoken here
and, frankly, more people speak American English than British English.
 In all my years in the educational arena, first as a student and then
as an instructor, I have never seen so much reverence toward a book.
Does he really deserve that?  Isn't his book a little obsolete?
bye
ari


Claudia, I wouldn't say that.  I would say "in years".  Perhaps "for
years" is British English.
bye
ari

 Does he really deserve that?  Isn't his book a little obsolete?
Su questo potrà risponderti solo un madrelingua, magari britannico. Ti posso 
dire però che la regola, almeno così come viene riportata nelle grammatiche 
che ho visto io, non prevede mai la sostituzione di "for" con "in". Tutte le 
volte in cui mi è capitato di vedere una cosa simile, si trattava di 
telefilm americani... 

 that "for" may be correct in some other part of the globe.
I would say 'in' in each of the examples, but I would not be surprised to 
hear 'for' for any of them. Or perhaps I should write that I would say 'in' 
for each of the examples, but I would not be surprised to hear 'for' in any 
of them. Unfortunately, I can't distinguish if I'm accustomed to the 'for' 
version from hearing it in the west, east, or south of the US. I wouldn't 
say that I'm accustomed to it from hearing it _for_ the west, east, or south 
of the US. 

 always amazes me how people take his word as Gospel.  
[...]
Non è il Vangelo, ma è un ottimo testo, imho, e anche stavolta mi pare che
ci pigli, no? :)

 Does he really deserve that?  Isn't his book a little obsolete?
Maybe. I've got the 2005 edition and we're now entering the 2007. :-)
Hei! Nessuno sta attaccando te o le tue idee.
Quando hai usato 'in' al posto di 'for' sono rimasto sorpreso
perché mi è stato insegnato ad usare 'for'.
Nel "English Grammar In Use" di Murphy ( penso sia la grammatica
più diffusa in Italia ) non si fa menzione di questo uso di 'in'.
Questa però è una grammatica per studenti alle prime armi e può
semplificare le cose.
Ho guardato allora sullo Swan e ho visto che avevi ragione.
Ho riportato la "regola" che ho trovato e ne ho chiesto conferma.
Tutto qui.
baci
pinko
-- 
mail to: pinko(at)
people.it

 ari
thanks ari, bye
Cla 


Who taught you that?
 From an English course I'm studying : "I must admit I haven't done any 
judo in about two years".
It seems that in is more common and elegant, at least in that construction.
bye

 Who taught you that?
I think it was the teacher in my school.
However, I asked in another newsgroup and they think
that in British English both forms are commonly used.
http://tinyurl.com/yma2vm
-- 
mail to: pinko(at)
people.it

Yes, coming from a native English speaker (solo parlo un po'
d'italiano--I learned some for a trip to Italy this last March) all
Ari's examples are right, too. If there's one fairly consistent
difference between the use of "in" and "for" in this case, it's this:
"In" is better used with non-regular and non-continuous things--things
that haven't happened in a while or haven't happened regularly. I don't
know that "for" is completely improper, but it's less common:
I haven't seen it rain like this in years.
We haven't been there in ages.
"For" is more common when talking about continuous or regular events:
It's been raining like this for hours.
Our family has been here for ages.
It's kind of a subtle distinction, but it's there. I'm not sure I
expressed it correctly, since I'm not a grammatician...
By the way, io ho un'interrogazione.. per "bullfrog," si diche "rana
gigante?" É giusto?
Grazie,
Jeremy



"rana toro", as far as I know.
"Ho una domanda", interrogazione is typically an oral test at school

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:1165019581....@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
It's kind of a subtle distinction, but it's there. I'm not sure I
expressed it correctly, since I'm not a grammatician...
"Grammatician"? I can't find this word on my dictionaries. Is there any 
difference between "grammatician" and "grammarian"? The latter is the only 
one I was able to find.
By the way, io ho un'interrogazione.. per "bullfrog," si diche "rana
gigante?" É giusto?
I looked up for that in two dictionaries. The former translates it with 
"rana gigante", the latter with "rana toro". I think both are correct. 

 gigante?" É giusto?
Look by yourself at the Italian version of this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullfrog
Anyway, I can't exclude that someone call it "rana gigante",
so I'd use the latine name, rana catesbeiana.
-- 
mail to: pinko(at)
people.it