in vs. within

[thedaffodils]

China is facing its worst electricity shortage in four years. The coal price is soaring, yet the government limits the electicity tariffs. Many small power plants are forced to shut down their factories or face increasing losses.

Hello! Could someone please tell me the differences between 'in' and 'within'? Can I replace 'in' with 'within' in above context? I think I can't replace.

Here is my understanding about the differences:


1) I will finish the job in 5 days.

If the subject is in future tense, "in" means after 5 days from now on.

2) I finished the job in 5 days.

If the subject is the past tense, "in" means 'within'. "within" and "in" are interchangeable in example 2.


Am I right? Thank you!

 

[David L.]

No. It is not to do with tense.

I will finish the job in 5 days = it will take you 5 days to finish the job.

I will finish the job within 5 days = yes, by the 5th day, the job will be finished, but it may be finished sooner than that - the job will be finished within the time period of 5 days, so it could be 4 days or even 3.
within = inside the range of an area or boundary
The main tourist areas are within the city walls.

• inside the range of a specified action or perception
within reach

• not further off than (used with distances)
Bob lives within a few miles of his job.

• occurring inside a particular period of time
"The new product sold out within two hours."
"One-third of the prisoners were rearrested within two years of their release."

• inside the bounds set by a concept, argument, etc.
"I want to concentrate on the physiological data relating to stem-cell research Discussion of the ethics of this is not within the scope of my expertise."

 

[tedtmc]

China is facing its worst electricity shortage in four years.

David
You haven't answered daffodil's question, which is: why must it be 'in' and not 'within' in the above sentence.

 

[David L.]

China is facing its worst electricity shortage in four years.

Four years ago, apparently, there was an energy shortage in China. Then the situation improved. Now there is another shortage, worse than any over the past 3 years, 364 days; but comparable to that of 4 years ago. We are talking about and comparing it to a shortage 4 years ago. There has been an elapse of 4 years since this other bad shortage - we are disregarding any fluctuations in supply and demand that may have occurred within that time period.

...and I predict that within 4 years, China will have exhausted its supply of ...

If I had said 'in', I would be making an exact prediction that this situation will occur in 4 years time. 'within' means sometime between now, and not more than 4 years.

 

[tedtmc]

If I had said 'in', I would be making an exact prediction that this situation will occur in 4 years time. 'within' means sometime between now, and not more than 4 years.

David
I still don't get you. Do you mean that 'within' is correct?

Here's another passage:

By AUDRA ANG
13 May 2008 @ 03:36 pm ESTNext Politics & Policy Article
MIANYANG, China (AP) - The toll of the dead and missing soared as rescue workers dug through flattened schools and homes on Tuesday in a desperate attempt to find survivors of China's worst earthquake in three decades.
Death toll in China earthquake exceeds 12,000 - International Business Times -

 

[David L.]

David
I still don't get you. Do you mean that 'within' is correct?

Understand that 'in' and 'within' give a statement a different meaning. In my earlier post I wrote:
I will finish the job in 5 days = it will take you 5 days to finish the job.

I will finish the job within 5 days = yes, by the 5th day, the job will be finished, but it may be finished sooner than that - the job will be finished within the time period of 5 days, so it could be 4 days or even 3.
I would choose 'in' or 'within' depending on what meaning I was wanting to convey.

The toll of the dead and missing soared as rescue workers dug through flattened schools and homes on Tuesday in a desperate attempt to find survivors of China's worst earthquake in three decades.

I think I see the confusion. Each of the examples is talking about a time period, a range - 'in three decades' - so why don't we use 'within'?

Firstly, 'in' is being used in the sense of, 'the worst since the one 30 years ago.'
I might say: "I have looked at the readings for earthquakes over the past 3 decades. Within that period, there have been 5 significant quakes."
Now, obviously, someone has looked at the figures for earthquakes going back over the years, and they found an earthquake as bad as the one recently in China and it happened 30 years ago. That bad one in the past did not happen 'within' the 30 years - it happened 30 years ago.

I can understand your confusion when we also say, "I will go in the morning" . Yes, this indicates I will go at some time over the period of time covered by 'morning'; but what I am meaning is, I am locating 'my going' to a point in time which is not afternoon, not at night, but during the morning. A case of This (morning) not That (afternoon or night or tomorrow etc). I am not referring to the actual period of hours over which a morning stretches.

 

[puzzle]

The toll of the dead and missing soared as rescue workers dug through flattened schools and homes on Tuesday in a desperate attempt to find survivors of China's worst earthquake in three decades.

:?: I think "in three decades" is wrong. It should be "within three decades". Right?

 

[puzzle]

Wait, I mean it should be "after three decades". Right?

 

[David L.]

Yes, it would be the worst earthquake 'after three decades', because it was the first earthquake after three decades.

If China had another small earthquake next week, I could equally call it the worst earthquake after three decades. 'after' disregards anything that happened 'before. There is some point in time, 'after which' then something happens.
After Christmas, we are going on holidays. So, nothing to do with time before Christmas, but in the time period starting as soon as Christmas is over.

'after' disregards the time period that went before, and indicates that something happens later than that.

I went home from the party after two hours. What happened during the two hours at the party is irrelevant. Two hours went by, after which, I left.

I could say, "After three decades of being earthquake-free, China had a severe tremour..."

 

[thedaffodils]

Yes, it would be the worst earthquake 'after three decades', because it was the first earthquake after three decades.

Morning David L.,

Thank you very much for all your answers in this thread. :-DTo be frank, I am still reading and thinking about your words. I am kinda losing myself here about "in" and "within". I even don't know what the crux of my question is. I will put on my questions about this later. :-?

But about the preposition-after, I think it would be odd to use the degree of comparison--worst since it is the first earthquake. Thus, I think 'worst' is redundant because all earthquakes are bad.:roll: What do you think about this?

Cheers!

 

[David L.]

Yes, it would be the worst earthquake 'after three decades', because it was the first earthquake after three decades.

I was trying to show that the sentence about 'worst' became meaningless: if the earthquake occurred at 9 a.m. Tuesday, then it is the first earthquake since 8.59 a.m that Tuesday. We can calculate back from 8.59 a.m. to 30 years ago, an elapse of three decades.
8.59 a.m. is that moment in time when the 30 years has elapsed; the earthquake happened after that, at 9 a.m., so it is the first/worst/baddest/worsest/most terrible-est earthquake AFTER an elapse of 30 years.

Let's not get bogged down in the niceties about use of comparatives while you're struggling to understand 'in', 'within' and 'after'.

 

[thedaffodils]

2008[FONT=&#23435]：

1 earthquake (8.0 magnitudes)

2007: 2 earthquakes (both 5.6 magnitude)

2006: 1 earthquake (5.5 magnitudes)

2005: 1 earthquake (6.5 magnitudes)

Hello David L.,
[/FONT]
There were 5 earthquakes within the 4 years from 2005 to 2008. (right?)
The latest earthquake was the worst in the four years. (right?)

:roll:

 

[thedaffodils]

2008[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]1 earthquake (6.5 magnitudes)

2007: 2 earthquakes (both 5.6 magnitude)

2006: 1 earthquake (5.5 magnitudes)

2005: 1 earthquake (8.0 magnitudes)

The earthquake in 2005 was the worst one within the 4 four years from 2005 to 2008. ( right?)

 

[Soup]

China is facing its worst electricity shortage in four years. :tick: <the whole 4 year span is a unit>

China is facing its worst electricity shortage within four years. :cross: <inside of the span; Cf David's example; mine = I'll be finished within the week. => Inside of the week, before the week ends.>

China has faced its worst electricity shortage within the past four years. :tick: <present perfect; inside of the past four years>

Within four years China will have ...:tick:
Within four years, China has committed to open ... :tick:
​

 

[thedaffodils]

Hi Soup,

Thank you very much for your illustrations. Could you please answer Post 13 of mine? Thank you!:-D:roll:

 

[Soup]

2008[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]1 earthquake (6.5 magnitudes)

2007: 2 earthquakes (both 5.6 magnitude)

2006: 1 earthquake (5.5 magnitudes)

2005: 1 earthquake (8.0 magnitudes)

The earthquake in 2005 was the worst one within/[inside of] the 4 four years from 2005 to 2008. (right?)

Right. :-D

 

[thedaffodils]

Right. :-D

You are helpful. Thank you, Soup!:-D:up:

 

[David L.]

The earthquake in 2005 was the worst one within/[inside of] the 4 four years from 2005 to 2008. (right?)

Yes, Soup, it is. But would any native speaker say that mouthful.

All this started by showing what went on 'within' the time period was irrelevant. It is a comparison between the current earthquake, and one thirty years ago of comparable magnitude - the worst 'in three decades'.

Yes, when WE (as opposed to the newspaper), itemize the severity on the Richter Scale, then we can talk about, refer to the time span, and say, over that period, yes, look, [/B], blah blah. As I said in an earlier posting, the newspaper had looked into the time period, and was grammatically correct in saying, 'it's the worst IN three decades".

Please explain this to thedaffodils.

I put to you the scenario, of non-native speakers facing the exam question:

It was China's worst earthquake ........ three decades. CHOOSE : in/within/after


Would you feel content if you left it that one of the non-native speakers in the forum reading this thread, thought that any choice other than 'in' was correct?

"I've been a member of this forum for thirty years. This is the most protracted posting I've experienced in three decades!"

 

[Soup]

The earthquake in 2005 was the worst one within/[inside of] the 4 four years from 2005 to 2008. (right?)

Yes, Soup, it is. But would any native speaker say that mouthful.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Thedaffodils is not a native speaker; moreover, the question was about within. My addition was semantic verification, nothing more.

All this started by showing what went on 'within' the time period was irrelevant. It is a comparison between the current earthquake, and one thirty years ago of comparable magnitude - the worst 'in three decades'.

My understanding is that this thread/discussion started with thedaffodils' assumption that within and in were determined by the verb's temporality, which you corrected in your follow-up post.

As I said in an earlier posting, the newspaper had looked into the time period, and was grammatically correct in saying, 'it's the worst IN three decades".

I agree.

Please explain this to thedaffodils.

I put to you the scenario, of non-native speakers facing the exam question:

It was China's worst earthquake ........ three decades. CHOOSE : in/within/after

Would you feel content if you left it that one of the non-native speakers in the forum reading this thread, thought that any choice other than 'in' was correct?

My response, given what I already know about thedaffodils' example (See post #1), in is the better choice, not the only choice, of course given context, but, nevertheless, the best choice for the context provided, as it is the unmarked form.

 

[David L.]

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Thedaffodils is not a native speaker;
My point.
and neither are most who read what we write.
My point entirely.

My response, given what I already know about thedaffodils' example (See post #1), in is the better choice, not the only choice, of course given context, but, nevertheless, the best choice for the context provided, as it is the unmarked form.

BUT WE ARE GIVEN THE CONTEXT
Do it need to shout how important that is?

I have been a member of this forum for forty years.
"This is the most protracted thread I've experienced in three decades."
There's the same context. You write, "not the only choice, of course"
Them's the written, given words - the context. Please explain exactly why 'within' or 'after' are appropriate in that context.

Note : 'Them's' is a colloquial use of bad grammar in the context of this debate. Non-native speakers please ignore.