2

When I try to express duration with intransitive verbs indicating a complete event, like "expire" or "melt", it works if I add "long" like:

The license has long expired.

But not:

The license has expired for two years now.

or

The snow has melted for two days now.

How is it that adding the indefinite time expression "long" makes the sentences sound more natural?

(I know that there are a lot of alternative ways to say this same, like: "The licence is two years past its expiry date" or "The license hasn't been renewed for two years now" or "The license expired two years ago" or "There hasn't been snow for two days now"..)

  • Rejlan, where is you research and what is the conclusion you're trying to test, please?

    Isn't your Question really, would it still work if you did not add 'long' and isn't the answer, obviously?

    Adding long does not make anything sound more natural. I can't prove that negative but If you doubt it, please explain.

    How do you think … expired for two years/days with or without a now are comparable to … long expired, please?

     – Robbie Goodwin Nov 21 '17 at 20:41
  • Interesting. The Collins CoBuild entry << long [domain: time] ... 1. adverb modifies verb a great amount of time or (b) for a great amount of time : (a)[negative polarity item] Repairs to the cable did not take too long / Have you known her parents long? //(b).. Chess has long been regarded as a measure of intellect. [modified]>> does not seem to address the 'long ago' sense you mention ('It has long expired') or the adjective-modifier sense ('He is long dead'). But notice that the former is a punctive usage. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 30 '20 at 21:23
  • "The license has long expired" just sounds wrong to me. – alphabet May 29 '23 at 04:12

0 Answers0