4Likes -
1 Post By 2006 -
1 Post By konungursvia -
1 Post By PROESL -
1 Post By PROESL
-
the first time in years
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.
-
Re: the first time in years

Originally Posted by
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.
You could use "for", but "in" sounds much better to me.
-
Re: the first time in years
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?
-
Re: the first time in years
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.
-
Re: the first time in years
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?
-
Re: the first time in years

Originally Posted by
Daruma
They both sound equally good to me. And "that" is optional.
-
Re: the first time in years

Originally Posted by
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.
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.
Last edited by PROESL; 08-Sep-2009 at 02:42.
Similar Threads
-
By shun in forum General Language Discussions
Replies: 10
Last Post: 13-Feb-2008, 18:54
-
By joham in forum Ask a Teacher
Replies: 1
Last Post: 08-Dec-2007, 16:52
-
By shun in forum Linguistics
Replies: 143
Last Post: 13-Oct-2006, 01:20
-
By shun in forum Teaching English
Replies: 143
Last Post: 09-Nov-2003, 00:56
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules

Search Engine Optimization by
vBSEO 3.6.1