Why some of sentences (*) are incorrect with regard to ascept or tense?
(i) a. *Twice, Peter didn't ride his bike to the seaside.
b. For two years, Peter didn't ride his bike to the seaside.
c. *In two years, Peter didn't ride his bike to the seaside.
(ii) a. *Twice, Peter didn't stand on the beach.
b. For two years, Peter didn't stand on the beach.
c. *In two years, Peter didn't stand on the beach.
(iii) a. *Twice, Peter wasn't walking along the shore.
b. For two years, Peter wasn't walking along the shore.
c. *In two years, Peter wasn't walking along the shore.
twice, for, in two years
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
There is nothing wrong with the tense or aspect.
Twice means two times; we normally say you do something twice, not you don't do it, unless that thing is an ommission. So your examples are strange but,
Twice this week you 've not locked the door when you've gone to work.
You could miss out 'this week' and it still would be OK.
The negative is equally the problem with 'in two years.'
In two years Peter only rode his bike to the seaside once.
is correct. as is
Peter hasn't taken his bike out of the shed in two yeare
and
Peter didn't ride his bike to the seaside in the two years he was at college in Hawaii.
Twice means two times; we normally say you do something twice, not you don't do it, unless that thing is an ommission. So your examples are strange but,
Twice this week you 've not locked the door when you've gone to work.
You could miss out 'this week' and it still would be OK.
The negative is equally the problem with 'in two years.'
In two years Peter only rode his bike to the seaside once.
is correct. as is
Peter hasn't taken his bike out of the shed in two yeare
and
Peter didn't ride his bike to the seaside in the two years he was at college in Hawaii.