If translated literally, you're correct. But, I think it's not common -might even be incorrect- to say: "He gave a look at a watch." You just don't say "you're giving a look at something" as far as my English goes, but I might be wrong.
However, in English it's common to say to "take a look at something". In this case: take a look at the watch. In past tense, I think is best to say "He looked at the watch" (in order to quickly determine what time it is).
It's uncommon in English to say "He gave a look..." but not necessarily incorrect; you can say this to imply someone "giving someone/something a look" with some intention or subtext/emotion. You might encounter it in a novel, or from a story someone is telling. Here's a basic example: "The teacher gave the misbehaving boy a look." This implies the teacher was using visual contact with the boy in order to imply that he'd better calm down or he would be punished. A non-verbal cue.
It is common in English (especially in England) to say "Let's have a look". It implies some joviality, though - I am from New York, so I would say this jokingly to a friend, but not in a serious manner.
It is equally common in America and England to say, "Take a look" or (past tense) "He took a look at the clock."
However, in looking at the posts from others on this phrase: "He took a look at the watch" - I've noticed people have said that this implies a "quick look" to see something. In this context, it is definitely most common in English to say "He checked the watch." Not only is it the fastest way of saying it (it has less syllables, and yes, the shorter you say something in New York, the better), but it implies that he did not look for long. If you want to know what time it is, you "check" what time it is. Yes, you can "take a look", but in New York, we would say check.
"Hey - what time is it?" / "Let me check... it's four o' clock."
I hope that this is helpful! Boa sorte!
Not necessarily idiomatic. Glanced should be fine here. I reported the suggestion.
It is not a simple look, it is like a fast look and it is better translated with "to take a look" or "to glance"
i've noticed that "dar" is used a lot for "take" e.g. take a walk, take a look, take a ride, take a leap. i always ask this stupid question: is there a rule about this that makes it more predictable?
To me there is a difference between look and glance, but as people's speech varies tremendously, the two words are often used interchangeably. To add to the mix is the word 'glimpse', as well. To 'have a look' (at) has a different meaning.
"He looked at his watch." (short, simple; quick look)
"He had a look/glanced at the clock on the wall (then he got back to his [task]...)" (needs to see how much time he has left) "The mechanic took a look at/had a look at the car to see what was making the odd sound". (more time/more effort is indicated) *As far as any humorous connotation...not sure. However you could say to a friend, ' I"m going to have a look-see at the selection of rubber daggers". That sounds slightly humorous to me, but it might be perfectly valid for others.
"He glimpsed at the tiny, shiny object which he saw from the corner of his eye..." [Emphasis is on the shortness of duration, (like 'glance') but it usually is something that catches the person's attention] Another option, 'glimpse': "He had noticed the group of people gathering outside the door,of his office when he glimpsed a beautiful bird that had flown in the window and landed on his desk (for example)."
That's my two cents. Hope it helps clarify. I'm nodding out, so hope it came out clearer than it seems right now ;p
OK. So those are correct:
• He gave a glance at his watch. • He took a look at the watch.
But “He took a glance at his watch" isn't.
I beg to differ, and I'm not alone here. Remember "The bare necessities" lyrics (from “The jungle book”):
• “Take a glance at the fancy ants".
I know that ants aren't watches and that the Indian jungle is not the Brazilian Mato Grosso, but grammar is grammar and my answer should be accepted.