Time period question

[vadv55]

Below are two ways of expressing a time period:

1. From YYYY to YYYY ...
2. From the years YYYY to YYYY ...

Is there any semantic difference between them?

 

[emsr2d2]

Below are two ways of expressing a time periods period:

1. From YYYY to YYYY ...
2. From the years YYYY to YYYY ...

Is there any semantic difference between them?

Thank you in advance for your reply. Unnecessary. Thank us after we help you, by adding the "Thanks" icon to any response you find helpful.

Welcome to the forum.

It's easier to use numbers than letters for such examples. As you can see from my tick above, "From 1984 to 1989 ..." is correct. The second example is wrong because the opening number is a single year so "years" is incorrect. You can say "From the year 1984 to the year 1989 ...". However, there's no need for "the year".

 

[vadv55]

Thank you for your reply with comments on the question asked. But the last period of time is the beginning of the first sentence in the famous story "The Solitary Cyclist" by Arthur Conan Doyle. Was he wrong?

 

[Rover_KE]

It's rarely necessary to include 'the year{s}'.

 

[Rover_KE]

... the last period of time is the beginning of the first sentence in the famous story "The Solitary Cyclist" by Arthur Conan Doyle. Was he wrong?

Please quote the sentence you're referring to, vadv25, and the year when it was written.

 

[vadv55]

1. Quote from the story: "From the years 1894 to 1901 inclusive, Mr Sherlock Holmes was a very busy man."
2. Year of the story: 1903.

 

[White Hat]

"From the years 1894 to 1901 inclusive Mr. Sherlock Holmes was a very busy man."

(Cross-posted with the OP)

 

[5jj]

"From the years 1894 to 1901 inclusive Mr. Sherlock Holmes was a very busy man."

Omit the period after Mr, and add a comma after inclusive.

 

[5jj]

1. "From the years 1894 to 1901 inclusive, ...".

emsr2d2's suggestions in post #2 are better.

 

[emsr2d2]

emsr2d2's suggestions in post #2 are better.

Woo hoo! My writing's better than Arthur Conan Doyle's!

 

[White Hat]

Omit the period after Mr, and add a comma after inclusive.

Was this addressed to Arthur Conan Doyle or the publisher? The text had been quoted verbatim.

 

[5jj]

I was commenting on the punctuation in post #7.

 

[vadv55]

My quote is from the following book:
Doyle, Arthur Conan. The return of Sherlock Holmes. - London, Sydney. - Penguin books, 1982 - 350 p.
As I understand it, the spelling of the time period used by Arthur Conan Doyle is already obsolete and is considered erroneous. Did I draw the right conclusion from this discussion?

 

[emsr2d2]

As I understand it, the spelling of the time period used by Arthur Conan Doyle is already obsolete and is considered erroneous. Did I draw the right conclusion from this discussion?

There's nothing wrong with the spelling. We've been commenting on the construction.

 

[vadv55]

In post #2:
The second example is wrong because the opening number is a single year so "years" is incorrect.

I am sorry that I did not understand the meaning of the above sentence, but if both ways of expressing a time period are correct, then the question asked at the beginning remains unanswered.

 

[Barque]

The word "inclusive" makes a difference. That's the reason he used the word "years". It indicates he's referring to all the years in that period.

You didn't quote the full sentence verbatim in your first post. If you had, you'd probably have got different answers.

 

[Rover_KE]

Woo hoo! My writing's better than Arthur Conan Doyle's!

But are you going to get paid more for it than he did?

 

[vadv55]

Thanks everyone for the replies, especially the last one. I have never seen a mention of this feature in it anywhere before.

 

[Barque]

The last one asking emsr2d2 what she'd be paid for her writing, or the last one addressing your question?

 

[SoothingDave]

But are you going to get paid more for it than he did?

Not adjusting for inflation, probably.