The city changed <for> <over> two years.

[Michaelll]

Hello, could you help me understand the difference between these two, please?

• The city changed for two years.
• The city changed over two years.

 

[Barque]

The city changed for two years.

This specific sentence is very unlikely to be said. It means that the city was in a state of change for two years but now it isn't changing anymore.

The city changed over two years.

This means that in a period of two years there were various changes in the city.

 

[5jj]

1. For a period of two years, the city became different.

It means that the city was in a state of change for two years but now it isn't changing anymore.

... and has reverted to its earlier state.

 

[Michaelll]

• 1a. The city changed for two years.

For a period of two years, the city became different
... and has reverted to its earlier state.

• 2a. The city changed over two years.

This means that in a period of two years there were various changes in the city.

Thank you!

Does the difference between 'for a period of time' and 'over a period of time' remain the same in these? Or do they mean something different here?

1b. We talked for two years.
2b. We talked over two years.

1c. It rained for two hours.
2c. It rained over two hours.

 

[Barque]

1b. We talked for two years.

This suggests they talked regularly for two years--in the course of a period of two years.

2b. We talked over two years.

This means all their conversations took place in a two-year period. Again, this is an unlikely sentence.

1c. It rained for two hours.

The rain lasted two hours.

2c. It rained over two hours.

I can't imagine anyone saying this.

You could however say "It rained for over two hours". Here. "over" means "more than" and not "during a period of". The same applies to 2b as well.

 

[5jj]

Of those four sentences, only 1c is natural.
1b is grammatical but extremely unlikely.

(Crossposted)

 

[Michaelll]

2b. We talked over two years.

This means all their conversations took place in a two-year period. Again, this is an unlikely sentence.

Why do you think this is an unlikely sentence? I found it here (click). I thought it should be "We talked for two years", so I'd like to understand the difference between the two.

 

[Barque]

Why do you think this is an unlikely sentence?

I guess it isn't wrong. But I'd say "We talked over a period of two years". That's probably what Stone meant--he just happened to drop the words "a period of". It could have been a slip of the tongue.

so I'd like to understand the difference between the two.

When you say you talked for two years, it means you and the other person had regular conversations for two years, and the conversations stopped.

When you say you talked over [a period of] two years, it suggests that you and the other person discussed something specific in the course of a period of two years. You may not necessarily have had frequent or regular conversations.

The city changed for two years.

This sentence is unnatural however. Most people would put it differently. There were [various/a lot of] changes in the city for two years. It's also a little vague--what do you mean by "changed" here?

2c. It rained over two hours.

This sentence is also unnatural in my opinion.

 

[Michaelll]

1a. The city changed for two years.

It's also a little vague--what do you mean by "changed" here?

I mean the city changed and the changes remained for two years. Something like this.

But on the other hand, I wanted to know how to express a different idea, where 'for two years' shows the duration of the actual action. Would the past continuous work here?
3a. The city was changing for two years.

 

[Barque]

3a. The city was changing for two years.

For some reason it doesn't sound right, though it's grammatical of course.

I mean the city changed

What do you mean by "the city changed"? All cities keep changing--construction occurs, buildings get demolished, new businesses open, people move away or die and people enter it. What sort of changes are you referring to?

 

[Michaelll]

What do you mean by "the city changed"? All cities keep changing--construction occurs, buildings get demolished, new businesses open, people move away or die and people enter it. What sort of changes are you referring to?

I just want to know how to translate these two different ideas from my native language into English.

3a. The city was changing for two years.

For some reason it doesn't sound right, though it's grammatical of course.

It doesn't sound right? But if "The city changed for two years" expresses one idea, how to convey the other, then? 'Over' instead of 'for' would help, right?

If so, then in my understanding "The city changed over two years" is like "The city has been changing for two years (ever since XYZ happened)" but in the past. "The city had been changing for two years" -- the past perfect continuous magnetizes to a point in the past, while I just want to say objectively about the action, regardless of other past points (by March 1872) and actions (when XYZ happened).

 

[Barque]

Are you referring to changes that took place for a period of two years in the past?

There were a lot of changes in the city during those two years.
There were a lot of changes in the city between 1975 and 1977.
The city changed over those two years.

Or are you referring to changes that took place over the last two years?

There have been a lot of changes in the city over the last two years.
The city has changed over the last two years.
The city wasn't like this two years ago.

It'd help if you provided context. I'm still not sure what you mean by "The city changed".

 

[Tarheel]

Why do you think this is an unlikely sentence? I found it here (click). I thought it should be "We talked for two years", so I'd like to understand the difference between the two.

He didn't say that. He said, "We talked for two years -- two and a half years ...." He went on to talk about what they had talked about.

 

[Tarheel]

@Michaelll "The city changed for two years."

That says to me that for some reason it stopped changing. Is that what you mean?

 

[Michaelll]

He didn't say that. He said, "We talked for two years -- two and a half years ...." He went on to talk about what they had talked about.

For me, he clearly said "We talked over two years, two and a half years, but I remember that ..." (click).

It'd help if you provided context. I'm still not sure what you mean by "The city changed".

I want to express this idea "The city has been changing for two years" - but as a fact of what happened in the past.

"The city had been changing for two years" -- the past perfect continuous magnetizes to a point in the past, which is not what I want - I just want to say objectively about the action, regardless of other past points (by March 1872) and actions (when XYZ happened).

e.g. "It's been raining for two hours" --> "It rained for two hours", but "The city changed for two years" has a different meaning of how long the change(s) lasted rather than how long the actual action was.

 

[Barque]

I want to express this idea "The city has been changing for two years" - but as a fact of what happened in the past.

"The city had been changing for two years" -- the past perfect continuous magnetizes to a point in the past, which is not what I want - I just want to say objectively about the action, regardless of other past points (by March 1872) and actions (when XYZ happened).

You've just repeated what you said earlier. I don't understand what you mean. You haven't yet explained what you mean by "change". I think I'll let someone else try and answer you.

 

[Michaelll]

You've just repeated what you said earlier.

I just hadn't created a better way to explain it. I'd have loved to think of a better way of explaining.

You haven't yet explained what you mean by "change".

By 'change' I mean an action of changing.

 

[Tarheel]

@Michaelll I typed that, and I don't have a perfect memory.


You can use "over" there (as he did).

 

[Tarheel]

I just haven't thought of a better way to explain it.

By 'change' I mean an action of changing.

When we change something we make it different from what it was before.

Please don't use the same word you're defining to define that word.

It is better, I think, to focus on one sentence at a time. It avoids confusion.

 

[Michaelll]

Please don't use the same word you're defining to define that word.

Ok, sorry.