"Am fost în Franța pentru două luni."

Translation:I was in France for two months.

January 6, 2018

This discussion is locked.


though I am not a native english speaker, i doubt you would say i WAS TO France during two months, which is the answer DUO gave me. It should be I HAVE BEEN IN FRANCE......


"I have been in France for two months" is correct if you are still in France; "I was in France for two months" is correct if you have left.


now I say that HERE the translation is given as I WAS IN..... why then does DUO give TWO different translations, one of them clearly wrong ?????


Could you use "timp de" instead of "pentru"?


I've noticed since the voice change that the new lady put an unwritten 'm' sound after certain words. Is this a mistake or do you really pronounce 'în' as 'inm'? Thanks


Is this the most natural way to say this?

I'm asking because using "pentru" here seems a bit weird to me, I would have expected "Am fost în Franța timp de două luni" or "Am fost în Franța două luni" to be the standard way to say this.

In particular, in French "pour" (~ "pentru") is typically not used to refer to lengths of time, but it acceptable if they are in the future. I thought this would be the same in Romanian.

Examples :

  • I'm leaving for two months / Plec pentru două luni / Je pars [pour] deux mois

  • I stayed [for] two months / Am stat [timp de] două luni / Je suis resté [pendant] deux mois

Am I correct in assuming that the situation here is similar to French and that "Am fost în Frața pentru două luni" is not the most natural way to say this? If not, why isn't the sentence "zburăm pentru treizeci de minute" (from the same lesson) accepted?

Learn Romanian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.