This confuses me a bit. Isn't the correct way to say this in English "I have been reading for an hour"? This answer wasn't accepted, but I don't think I have ever seen the present continuous used in this context (but English is not my native language, so I might be wrong)
"I have been reading for an hour" indicates that the reading started an hour ago and is still going on. "I am reading for an hour" indicates that the total reading time is an hour, but it may or may not have started yet (e.g., "I am reading for an hour, and then I'm going to bed")
oh, right, I didn't think of it like this. Thanks for the clarification. As always, context is crucial :)
You could answer the question "What do you do just before bedtime?" with the habitual present "I read for an hour."
Isn't the present simple tense a more correct way of conveying the following thought: (I am reading for an hour indicates that the total reading time is an hour, but it may or may not have started yet (e.g., "I am reading for an hour, and then I'm going to bed"))?
The present simple tense would indicate that it is habitual (I read for an hour every night).
We use "i" to mean "for" in matters of time.
- "i to timer" = for two hours.
- "i tolv dager" = for twelve days.
Don't worry if this confuses you. It confused me at first.
Thank you very much sir. I was more intrigued and curious than i was confused. But I now see that the use of "i" is also a matter of context.
I got it wrong by translating in to "I read in an hour", as in I can read it in an hour's time - perhaps because I am a slow reader that's what came to mind. Would that be another possible meaning for 'Jeg leser i en time'?
How do you tell the difference between the Norwegian "time" meaning "hour" in English and also meaning "time"?
The Norwegian for time is 'tid'. 'Time' always means hour (or class/period, but that should be obvious from context).
Isn't 'en' stressed so it should, or at least could, be 'one' instead? I answered 'a' so i don't know if 'one' is considered correct too.