I've organized the employee picnic (for) the past seven years.

[kadioguy]

(My sentences)

a. I've been there for the first time.
b. I've been there the first time.

c. I've been there for a few times.
d. I've been there a few times.

e. I've organized the employee picnic for the past seven years.
f. I've organized the employee picnic the past seven years.
--
(a) is correct while (b) is suspicious.
(d) is correct while (c) isn't.
(e) and (f) both work and mean the same.

Is that right?

 

[5jj]

a. I've been there for the first time.
b. I've been there the first time.

I can't think of a natural context for either as it stands.

 

[kadioguy]

I can't think of a natural context for either as it stands.

How about these?
a' I've been there for the second time.
b' I've been there the second time.

 

[5jj]

No.

Saying '(for) the first/second time' is more likely to be used of a situation associated with a past-time event.

 

[kadioguy]

Saying '(for) the first/second time' is more likely to be used of a situation associated with a past-time event.

Then perhaps these:
a'' I went there for the second time.
b'' I went there the second time.

 

[5jj]

They are both possible. In what context would you wish to say them?

 

[kadioguy]

They are both possible. In what context would you wish to say them?

Maybe like this:

Hi, Tom. Have you been to that newly opened bowling alley yet? I went there (for) the second time yesterday. It was so fun!

 

[Tarheel]

@kadioguy Try this. (See below.)

Jerry: Hi Tom!
Tom: Hi Jerry!
Jerry: Tom, have you you been to that newly opened bowling alley yet?
Tom: No, I haven't. Have you?
Jerry: Yes. I went there for the second time yesterday. It was fun!
Tom: I'm going to have to try it.

 

[emsr2d2]

Maybe like this:

Hi, Tom. Have you been to that newly opened bowling alley yet? I went there (for) the second time yesterday. It was so much fun!

In that context, you need "for".

Here's an example without "for":

Helen: The Rolling Stones have played in London twice.
Sarah: Did you go?
Helen: I went the second time.

 

[kadioguy]

e. I've organized the employee picnic for the past seven years.
f. I've organized the employee picnic the past seven years.

1. I've organized the employee picnic [for] the past seven years.
2. I've read this book [for] two hours.

I assume that in (1) "for" is optional, while in (2) it is necessary.

I think that “for” introduces a duration (time passing), but if the structure is "the + a duration" (as in [1]) then "for" is optional. Is that right?

 

[Tarheel]

1. I've organized the employee picnic [for] the past seven years.
2. I've read this book [for] two hours.

I assume that in (1) "for" is optional, while in (2) it is necessary.

I think that “for” introduces a duration (time passing), but if the structure is "the + a duration" (as in [1]) then "for" is optional. Is that right?

I would use "for" in both sentences, and I don't consider it optional.

 

[kadioguy]

I would use "for" in both sentences, and I don't consider it optional.

But I did see things like this:

[From a TOEIC test]
Man: Didn't you organize the employee picnic last year?
Woman: I've done it the past seven years.

 

[emsr2d2]

I've heard sentences like that without "for". I've always associated it with AmE but if Tarheel wouldn't use it, then perhaps I'm mistaken about that. For me, in that specific sentence, it's optional but I prefer it with "for". If you change "years" to "times", then "for" would be wrong.

 

[jutfrank]

1. I've organized the employee picnic [for] the past seven years.
2. I've read this book [for] two hours.

I assume that in (1) "for" is optional, while in (2) it is necessary.

In 2, it's necessary, yes. With 1, although you will hear native speakers drop the for in casual speech, I don't think you should do it.