Conference thebay::joyoflex

    I'm going to try this without the benefit of anything like Fowler's, so
    it's going to be just my two-pennorth, not a definitive answer.
    
    	How long will it last?
    
    I would expect this form to be used when it is a question of 'survival'. 
    For example, put a plate of cakes in front of a group of children and
    it is 'how long will the cakes last?'
    
    	How long will it take?
    
    I would expect this form to be used when it is a question of
    'time'.  And so one asks about the children in the previous
    example, 'how long will it take them to clear the plate?'
    
    I think there's also an element of emotion creeps into 'how long will
    it last?'  When you use 'take' it's generally an unemotional question,
    seeking information.  When you use 'last' you want it to be prolonged,
    or to be over as soon as possible.
    
    Nick

    The way I understand it, `How long will it take?' refers to a finite
    action or a period delimitable by a finite action, `How long will it
    last?' to a state of affairs of indeterminate duration. So `How long
    will  this storm last?' but `How long will it take for this storm to
    blow itself out'. Note that the `finite action' doesn't have to be
    enunciated as a finite verb - the period asked about in `How long will
    this [a task] take?' ends when the task is done.
    
    Philosophers of language may have a neater answer, and I'm sure this
    understanding wouldn't survive Occam's razor, but I _think_ it works
    for me.
    

    One of my co-workers is Swedish. She speaks with an accent, but her
    usage of the idiom is nearly perfect. Only rarely does she select an
    improper phrase and then we both delight in the analysis of why it's
    wrong. When I read this note, it took me a few moments of analysis to
    figure out when and why I would use the different questions. I rushed
    into her office today to get her reaction. Much to my disappointment,
    the difference in the questions was perfectly clear to her. "Well,
    maybe if you spoke German you'd have a problem" was her response.
    Apparently Swedish makes the same distinction as English.

    re: .2
    
    Except that at plays you'll hear people ask, "How long does the
    second act last?"
    
    The lasting seems like a property of the thing that's happening --
    the cake in .1 will last a certain length of time that varies
    according to the number of kids consuming it; the storm in .2 will
    storm until it's done -- while the taking refers to the amount of
    time or effort being consumed -- it will take a certain amount of
    time to eat the cake.  The play will last until it's done, and it
    will take you that much time to listen to it.
    
    --bonnie

    > The play will last until it's done, and it
    > will take you that much time to listen to it.
    
    But the memories will last you a long time.

Well, I am certainly glad that I asked the question in .0; I 
thoroughly enjoyed the replies.  I didn't get the cut-n-dry 
answer that I had hoped for, but I guess I can be flattered that 
I asked a challenging question.

I don't know how long the activity in this note will last (or 
should I say "how long it will take for the interest in this note 
to fade"  :-)  ) but thanks for the help.  I will see my German 
friends tomorrow and I will let you know if this discussion has 
helped or not.

Thanks,
Bill

    G'day,
     In Australia, an attractively priced (= sale priced) car or house or
    whatever is often advertised as
    
    
     "Won't last long!"
    
    derek
     

    Just having been thru a spate of car problems, I look at it this
    way:
    
    "How long will it take?"
    --Car owner, dropping his car off with the mechanic, after asking
      how much will it cost
    
    ""How long will it last?"
    --Car owner, picking his car up from the mechanic, after, of course, 
      asking how much it *really* costs
                          
    						Don

    When the shoemaker had worn out all but one remaining set of tools,
    his assistant asked:  "How long will the last last last?"

>   When the shoemaker had worn out all but one remaining set of tools,
>   his assistant asked:  "How long will the last last last?"

    And, when this scene was being filmed, the key grip said
    "How long will the last last take take?"

    	... to which the best boy replied, "We'll take the last last
    take last."

    It seems that there's a question of voice (active/passive) in the
    original question.  We can ask "how long will it take" when the
    person we're addressing (or some 3rd person) has some control over 
    things.  "How long will it last" is more inclusive: if can be
    used when things are either under someone's control or are going 
    on independently of the people in the conversation (or anyone else).
    
    Thus:
    
    	"How long will the storm last?" - ok
    	"How long will the storm take?" - less ok
    
    but note:
    
    	"How long will the storm take to pass over?" - ok (I think)
    
    Why?  In the last question, the storm is explicitly doing somthing,
    i.e. passing over, therefore it's active, sort of.
    
    On the other hand:
    
    	"How long will the operation take?" } both ok, unless the person
    	"How long will the operation last?" } asking the question is the surgeon
    
    Here both are ok because an operation is always presumably under
    someone's (the surgeon's) control.      
    
    Sorry to break the interesting and productive :-) flow of the last
    few replies, but I thought this might be of some use.
    
    
    						Mark

Another thought, if our German friends aren't too tired of this.

Notice:

	"It took two hours for the storm to end." 	- ok
	"It lasted two hours for the storm to end."	- not ok
	(even though "The storm lasted two hours" is fine)
and

	"It usually takes two hours for these storms to end." - ok
	"It usually lasts two hours for these storms to end." - not ok
         (even though "These storms usually last for two hours" is fine)

If my last note (.13) is right, shouldn't this be the other way around?
Storms aren't usually under anyone's control, and .13 suggests that
"lasts" might be expected here.

The answer seems to be that "take" has on the same impersonal meaning
as "last" when it's used in the construct "It takes <requirement> for
{action | state | event}".  Why?  Because this type of sentence asserts
some objective truth, i.e. it doesn't depend on any of the people in 
the conversation.

There.  Now it's all settled, right??
    
    
    
    						Mark

    Mark, one problem is that your passive/active voice terminology is
    wrong -- both verbs are usually used in the active voice.  Passive
    voice would be, "Two hours were taken by the storm."  I couldn't
    think of a way to cast "last" into the passive voice.  "Two hours
    were lasted by the storm"?  Not unless it's a shoe storm.
    
    But one real difference that your examples in .14 called out is
    that "last" often (almost always?) used intransitively (no object
    to receive the action), while "take" in this sense is transitive.  
    
    --bonnie

    Right you are, Bonnie.  Mea to the maxima culpa!
    
    I used a grammatical distinction (active/passive voice) when what 
    I had in mind is a semantic distinction (someone has control/noone
    has control).
    
    						Mark
    
    
    N.B.  I hope that'll be the last of these shoe jokes.

    I guess the shoe jokes don't last as well as other kinds of jokes,
    huh?
    
    --bonnie

    I would say that ALL intransitive verbs have trouble being "passified."
    
    Now about those jokes, I hope you're not trying to shoo them away.
    You're stepping on toes here.  Take it easy.  They're good for your soul.

    G'day,
    Eyelet this one have tongue, so I would not miss out on the corn. I
    wanted to keep instep, but instead, I became a three quarter lining by
    playing ball. I metatarsal. It got toey and it nailed me. Can you
    chilblain it?
    
    derek
    

    G'day,
    
     I guess I am a mere WELTerweight in puns, but at least my IQ is
    greater than my shoesize. I may write a load of cobblers, and that's
    not awl, Brad.
    
    No doubt some heel will come for me with a stilletto. They will pump
    me, I'm sure, but I shall talk with a brogue. Though under pressure, I
    shall revert to Oxford, and maintain the tradition of Wellington's.
    
    I mean, Galoshes, man, what sole! Hush puppy! Clark's will make the
    floorsheim for Julius Marlowe.
    
    derek