Translation:She was in the army for thirty years.
will por treinta años work here or only durante. I thought durante is during.
Both work, but I think "durante" is more common.
I've never heard durante being used in this type of context. I've always used por
Agreed. I was taught English speakers habitually overuse"durante" because its a cognate
'Military' should be accepted.....as well as 'army'. It was accepted in an earlier part of the lesson! What gives??
I was told by my spanish teacher that past tense estar is always going to be in the imperfect, except in a few rare cases. Is this one of those rare cases?
I think estaba would work better here, because it's a period of time. But I don't think 'estuvo' would be misunderstood, nor sound too weird. Although it does sound a little like she was in the army, and now history has been erased.
The imperfect does not work here because there is a finite duration of time (30 years) and has stopped . The imperfect would have been used if it said "ella estaba en el ejercito".
I think the correct answer should consider a person translating the sentence in correct english. My answer was marked wrong because i said during the last thirty years. I dont understand.
the sentence doesn't say "the last thirty years", it says "for thirty years". Two different meanings. The translated sentence given at the top is correct English.
Nancy and the others who think army = military. What about the navy, the air force, the marines? They are military but not army.