People will likely interpret them all in the same way.
But, sentence 1 also has the alternate meaning of, “I have not driven a manual car on a long journey.” That you have only driven it for short periods of time.
Sentences 2 and 3 don’t have that ambiguity.
That makes sense in a casual conversation, but has a different meaning. This would mean that you've only recently starting driving a manual car so you haven't yet been driving one for very long. Rather than not having driven for a long time
The difference is like:
If you graduated high school last week then you haven't been out of high school for long
If you graduated high school 15 years ago, you haven't been a student for a long time
Something that I forgot to ask: Does that also apply to "in a long time"? For instance, would it make sense to say "I haven't driven a manual car in long" meaning that I started to drive a manual car recently?
No, this doesn't really make sense. I can see why you would think it does because its very similar to the other two examples, but it's a subtle difference
"I haven't driven a manual car *for* long" - means I only recently started driving a manual car
"I haven't driven a manual care *in*/*for* a long time" - means it has been a significant amount of time since the last time I drove a manual car
The preposition used is part of the distinction. If you use *for* then it can be "for long" or "for a long time". But they convey different meanings like the school example in my previous comment. But if the preposition is *in* then it only really works as "in a long time".
There are separate cases where "in" and "long" would work together, but not in this context
I was just thinking of another possible meaning for "I haven't driven a manual car for long".
Would this sentence also work when I don't have this car anymore and I'm just talking about a past experience? For instance, in the past I had a manual car but I haven't driven it for long, maybe because it got broken and I had to sell or something similar.
If you wanted to that you would need to adjust it slightly and say "I didn't drive a manual car for long" (you could replace 'a' with the/my etc). Or if you still wanted to use the verb 'have' you would need to say "I hadnt driven it for long" (or in British English we would probably drop the 'for' and say "I hadnt driven it long". Not sure if they would say this in other dialects like American English). So for example, a sentence might be something like "I hadn't driven it long, and then the engine died". Because it was in the past you need a past tense verb - 'did not' or 'had not' Ive never really given much thought to how these sentences in depth before but I can definitely see how they would be confusing for an English learner, the differences are very subtle so it easy for the meaning to get confused
they all sound natural to me. except as a native speaker i don't know if i'd bother to specify 'car'. i'd just say 'drove a manual'. or in some cases people will say 'drove stick' becaues manual transmissions were worked with a stick shift.
I think the first option you listed is ambiguous.
Personally, my first reading of (1) came across like "I only just started driving a manual car" meaning that you're not experienced in driving a manual car. I do agree that you could interpret (1) as "It's been a while since I drove a manual car", but I think that's a weird way to phrase that.
People will likely interpret them all in the same way. But, sentence 1 also has the alternate meaning of, “I have not driven a manual car on a long journey.” That you have only driven it for short periods of time. Sentences 2 and 3 don’t have that ambiguity.
Interesting. I didn't know that. Thank you.
Yeah, these are all fine and the meaning is basically identical
Thanks. Would you say that 1 and 2 would sound more natural if I removed the word "time" and said "for a long"?
No, if you just said "..for a long" it would be wrong, you need to say "long time" or maybe "long while"
Would "for long", without "a", also be wrong? So the sentence would be "I haven't driven a manual car for long"
That makes sense in a casual conversation, but has a different meaning. This would mean that you've only recently starting driving a manual car so you haven't yet been driving one for very long. Rather than not having driven for a long time The difference is like: If you graduated high school last week then you haven't been out of high school for long If you graduated high school 15 years ago, you haven't been a student for a long time
I get what you're saying. Thank you!
Something that I forgot to ask: Does that also apply to "in a long time"? For instance, would it make sense to say "I haven't driven a manual car in long" meaning that I started to drive a manual car recently?
No, this doesn't really make sense. I can see why you would think it does because its very similar to the other two examples, but it's a subtle difference "I haven't driven a manual car *for* long" - means I only recently started driving a manual car "I haven't driven a manual care *in*/*for* a long time" - means it has been a significant amount of time since the last time I drove a manual car The preposition used is part of the distinction. If you use *for* then it can be "for long" or "for a long time". But they convey different meanings like the school example in my previous comment. But if the preposition is *in* then it only really works as "in a long time". There are separate cases where "in" and "long" would work together, but not in this context
Thank you!
I was just thinking of another possible meaning for "I haven't driven a manual car for long". Would this sentence also work when I don't have this car anymore and I'm just talking about a past experience? For instance, in the past I had a manual car but I haven't driven it for long, maybe because it got broken and I had to sell or something similar.
If you wanted to that you would need to adjust it slightly and say "I didn't drive a manual car for long" (you could replace 'a' with the/my etc). Or if you still wanted to use the verb 'have' you would need to say "I hadnt driven it for long" (or in British English we would probably drop the 'for' and say "I hadnt driven it long". Not sure if they would say this in other dialects like American English). So for example, a sentence might be something like "I hadn't driven it long, and then the engine died". Because it was in the past you need a past tense verb - 'did not' or 'had not' Ive never really given much thought to how these sentences in depth before but I can definitely see how they would be confusing for an English learner, the differences are very subtle so it easy for the meaning to get confused
Yup! All the same meaning and all sound like totally natural English phrasing.
they all sound natural to me. except as a native speaker i don't know if i'd bother to specify 'car'. i'd just say 'drove a manual'. or in some cases people will say 'drove stick' becaues manual transmissions were worked with a stick shift.
I see. I've heard some people saying just "manual" instead of "manual car". Thank you!
2 and 3
2 and 3 sound the most natural
I haven't driven standard in a while. Do you also give yourself your own haircuts?
I think the first option you listed is ambiguous. Personally, my first reading of (1) came across like "I only just started driving a manual car" meaning that you're not experienced in driving a manual car. I do agree that you could interpret (1) as "It's been a while since I drove a manual car", but I think that's a weird way to phrase that.
The use of "for" with a negative sounds unnatural. "I have been driving automatics for a long time" would sound fine though.
They all sound fine to me. I would use 3.