I walked two miles.

I walked two hours.

From these sentences, is it possible to make a sentence like

"I walked two miles two hours," without interposing "for" in front of "two hours"?
1 2
Dear Nishi-tokyo,

You may say «I walked two miles in two hours».

Kindest regards, Emotion: smile

Welcome to Englishforums, Nishi-tokyo,

"I walked two miles two hours." is a little too abbreviated for me. It may be fine in creative writing that uses a 'clipped' literary style. But for normal use, 'I walked two miles in two hours', or, 'I walked for two hours, a distance of two miles.' The way you say it depends on what emphasis you want. Is it distance, is it time, is it rate of walking speed?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Hello there.
Seems .. paco is not online now. He refered me recently to this thread:


Please copy and paste, Nishi-Tokyo. Welcome to EnglishForums!
Thanks to all of you for clarification.

Originally, my question was triggered by another one of purely grammatical nature that I found posted on a website where we Japanese discuss English grammar and something like that.

The question went like this: Assuming that in each of the sentences the preposition "for" is obviously left out behind the verb, then why is it that in the sentence resulting from combining the two, the absence of prepositions looks somewhat odd from a grammatical point of view.
Hello Nishi-tokyo. I'm not competent to explain proper usages of English, but let me add my opinion.

As Goldmund and Davkett say, I think the sentence "I walked two miles two hours" could be naturally understood as «I walked two miles in two hours», «I walked for two hours, a distance of two miles».
(With some intonation or emphasis, maybe...? At least I hesitate to call it 'grammatically odd.')

But, on the other, the following sentence [1] should get a completely different, unusual interpretation, ... I've learned so, at least.

[1] I walked two miles for two hours.
Cf. I ran 100-meters for two hours. ...that is, he ran, repeatedly.

I'm sorry if I couldn't make myself clear. (and I have to warn you: I may be wrong!). By the way where's that site, seems interesting.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
I should have mentioned another, a bit more natural interpretation of [1], than 'repeated-event' reading.

We can understand [1] as 'at every time within some two-hours-interval, I was engaged in some activity ┈ that is, 'walking-two-miles' activity.
In this interpretation, [1] doesn't say whether I did walk two miles in the end or not. There's a difference between [1] and the sentence〖I walked two miles in two hours〗.

I think there's a parallel phenomenon in Japanese.
Hi, Roro:

Thank you four your insightful comments on the question.

On a note slightly related to what you've suggested, I should have pointed out first and foremost that the point the questioner seemed to be stressing about it all was that the omission of the preposition "for" in front of words describing time or distance is often permissible in terms of grammar in sentences like:

"I've lived here for ten months," or "I've lived here ten months;"


"I ran for five miles this morning," or "I ran five miles this morning."

I have no idea which souds more natural in either case, though.
Hello Nishi-tokyo. Neither do I. ...But from what I gather, I'd say: the versions without 'for' are fairly prefered, not only permissible.
I'm not sure whether you got an answer or not. If not, I'm sorry for my interruption; I'd recommend you .. if you don't mind .. to restate your question. I will be interested in your question.

With my best regards,
Try out our live chat room.
Show more