the first time in years

[Daruma]

Hello.

"It was the first time in years I'd been able to look at myself without being upset - I'd forgotten what it was like to have a full head of hair.

Do you use "for" in place of in?

Thank you.

[2006]

Hello.

"It was the first time in years I'd been able to look at myself without being upset - I'd forgotten what it was like to have a full head of hair.

Do you use "for" in place of in?

Thank you.

You could use "for", but "in" sounds much better to me.

[Daruma]

It was the first time I'd been able to look at myself in years without being upset - I'd forgotten what it was like to have a full head of hair.

Is in years in an appropriate position?

[konungursvia]

English is flexible about such things, much more so than Chinese and Japanese. But I agree it would sound better (clearer) if "first time in years" was all together.

[Daruma]

year - Definition from the CHRONOLOGY topic - TECHNOLOGY
It was the first time in years I'd seen her.

Would it be okay to say: It was the first time in years that I'd seen her?

Which sounds better?

[PROESL]

year - Definition from the CHRONOLOGY topic - TECHNOLOGY
It was the first time in years I'd seen her.

Would it be okay to say: It was the first time in years that I'd seen her?

Which sounds better?

They both sound equally good to me. And "that" is optional.

[PROESL]

Hello.

"It was the first time in years I'd been able to look at myself without being upset - I'd forgotten what it was like to have a full head of hair.

Do you use "for" in place of in?

Thank you.

It's possible, but I'd use "in" for this sentence. But why are both possible?

I think both are possible because "for" refers to an amount of elapsed time or a period of time that has yet to elapse, and "in" is used to mark a time limitation of an action, event, or state. Both viewpoints of time work for this sentence: for -an amount of elapsed time or time that is to elapse: in - marks a time limitation - a kind of "finish line".

for years - a period of time that is a number of years

in years - a period of time that does not exceed "years", with "years" in this case being relative to a reasonable amount of time as perceived by the speaker. So, perhaps, this could mean three to five years? Try it with a definite number of years instead of an indefinite number of "years".


Let's see how "in" and "for" are definitely not interchangeable.

Can you have that report done in one week? - time limitation - not "for one week". -And we can see that "in" is a kind of "finish line".

I'll have it on your desk in three days. - time limitation - not "for three days" - And, once again, "in" can be seen as a kind of "finish line".

I'll be finished with this report in a week. - time limitation - not "for a week". - Not more than a week from today: today_______________________| - one week marks the finish line

I worked on this report for three hours this morning. - a period of time - not "in three hours".

So in these sentences both viewpoints of time are not interchangeable.

I think there's more logic to preposition use than we imagine sometimes. It requires a little thought, however.