Does it sound OK to say "let's paint the town red for a few hours".
And how about "they painted the town red in four hours"?
And how about "they painted the town red in four hours"?
|
paint the town red + adverbial
Does it sound OK to say "let's paint the town red for a few hours".
And how about "they painted the town red in four hours"?
Another:
"I cried my eyes out for hours." ? "It took me hours to cry my eyes out." "I cried my eyes out in hours." Why does "for" work there, but not "in"? What is it about "in" that forces a literal reading, even if absurd?
<<"I cried my eyes out in hours."
Why does "for" work there, but not "in"? >> I suppose because the logic is off...you don't specify how many hours. Had you written: 'I cried my eyes out in three hours' that sounds fine. Otherwise, sounds like your tears came out in quantities of time [i.e. Hours:]
<Had you written: 'I cried my eyes out in three hours' that sounds fine. >
It sounds odd. It gives an absurd literal reading (one's eyes literally fell out at the end of three hours) to what is normally a metaphor.
<<Why does "for" work there, but not "in"? What is it about "in" that forces a literal reading, even if absurd? >>
I think doing something "in XX hours" implies that the task was completed, whereas doing omething "for XX hours" just says that you did it foe that long. Example: "I ran the marathon for 6 hours." (may have stopped before completion, having gotten enough execise or the day). "I ran the marathon in 6 hours." (completed the whole distance)
<I think doing something "in XX hours" implies that the task was completed, whereas doing omething "for XX hours" just says that you did it foe that long.>
Yes, the "for-adverb" expresses action and the "in-adverb" accomplishment. |