for vs in

[birendrapnayak]

Hi ALL,

Please see the two sentences cited below:


Britain appointed its first ambassador to Somalia for 21 years on Thursday during a visit to the capital of the anarchic Horn of Africa nation by Foreign Secretary William Hague.


On 2 February 2012 he was accredited as the first British Ambassador to Somalia for 21 years


I don't understand how for is used in this context. I would rather use in instead of for.
However, I know perfectly that they can't be wrong as they appear on British websites.
Could anybody please explain to me the prepositional use of for in this context?

Thanks,
Birendra

 

[Rover_KE]

for (prep.) Indicating the space or time through which an action or state extends,

(Macmillan)

You are correct in considering in to be acceptable in this context.

Rover

 

[Tdol]

Both prepositions are OK.

 

[5jj]

He was the first ambassador appointed for (or 'in') twenty-one years.
He was the first ambassador appointed since 1991.

I would use 'for' in the first sentence. This is more common than 'in' in BrE, in my opinion.

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Hello, Birendra:

(1) I believe that 99.99% of native-born Americans would insist on in.

(2) I distinctly remember the first time that I saw "for" used in such a sentence (in a British publication). Like you, I was also

so bemused that I had to stop reading the article and wondered if the fault lay with me.


HAVE A NICE DAY!

 

[BobSmith]

(1) I believe that 99.99% of native-born Americans would insist on in.

I agree. In fact, to my AmE ears, "Britain appointed its first ambassador to Somalia for 21 years" sounds like Britain has been appointing the same first ambassador over the course of 21 years! ;-)

 

[birendrapnayak]

Thanks everybody for the replies. I was bemused when I first read the sentence. Like Bob Smith I also thought that the British ambassador was going to be appointed over the course of 21 years....However, I now understand that in British English both in and for are acceptable in such cases.

Thanks,
Birendra

 

[Barb_D]

I learned something new today. I would have said the sentence was wrong, unless the position had a 21-year term. Now I know better.

Prepositions are tricky beasts.

 

[Tdol]

I agree. In fact, to my AmE ears, "Britain appointed its first ambassador to Somalia for 21 years" sounds like Britain has been appointing the same first ambassador over the course of 21 years! ;-)

We live and learn. ;-)