|
|
#2 (permalink) Fri Jul 18, 2008 14:14 pm times ago |
|
|
Hi Gromit
I would consider that to be an error in usage. You can say any of the following, for example:
- hours/days/months/years/decades/centuries ago
I agree that "in the past" would be better in the sentence.
The phrase 'times ago' might be used occasionally, but then it would refer to a specific number of instances ago.
By the way, I taught English in Germany for many years, and I can tell you that Germans seem to be much fonder of the phrase 'in former times' than anyone else in the world. (In other words, that is a phrase that tends to be over-used and/or misused by German speakers of English.) . |
|
Yankee I'm a Communicator ;-)

Joined: 16 Apr 2006 Posts: 8265 Location: USA
|
|
#3 (permalink) Fri Jul 18, 2008 14:28 pm times ago |
|
|
Hi Gromit,
Amy (yankee) provided a few good clues there. I'd like to add that you should have a look at used to. It's "used as an auxiliary to express habitual or accustomed actions or states taking place in the past but not continuing to be the case in the present".
I used to smoke, but then I quit 5 years ago
'used to do sth' can easily be confused with 'to be used to doing sth'
I'm used to working long hours. I don't mind starting work early and finishing late. _________________ Test of English as a Foreign Language TOEFL Preparation & TOEFL Vocabulary Learn more: How to Become an English Teacher |
|
Ralf Language Coach

Joined: 20 Apr 2006 Posts: 1485 Location: EU (Ireland and Germany)
|
 |
#4 (permalink) Sat Jul 19, 2008 13:30 pm times ago |
|
|
Hi Gromit
Amy and Ralf are right. However if you wish to sound a little prosaic "times ago" can be used. I have come across it before in novels. It is has a literary air to it. But I would not suggest using it.
cheers stew.t. _________________ Please meet Stewart Tunncilff |
|
Stew.t. I'm here quite often ;-)

Joined: 14 Dec 2006 Posts: 549 Location: Leipzig, Germany
|
 |
|
| so few people OR such few people | what does "he was literally struck dumb" mean? |