2

I just heard on ABC, regarding speaker election, something like

We have never had this in a hundred years.

From what I learned, for instead of in seems (more) correct to me. Hence the question in the title:

Is either in or for better in the above sentence or do both work fine, when the intended meaning is 'We have this for the first time in a hundred years'?

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

These two sentences mean different things in English.

The sentence "We have not seen this in a hundred years" means that within the period of the last hundred years, it has not been seen.

The sentence "We have not seen this for a hundred years" means that we saw this one hundred years ago, but it has not been seen since then.

The difference is that "for" asserts that the event occurred immediately prior to the period being discussed, but "in" makes no such claim. In fact, you can use "in" even if the event has never occurred before.

Improve this answer
0

The construction heard is commonly used by many English speakers and will be understood by many English speakers. It means the same as "in 100 years we have never had this".

Saying "we have never had this for a hundred years" is also grammatically correct and is used by some English speakers, and it will be understood by many English speakers.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    But there is a subtle difference in meaning between the two. Using "for one hundred years" suggests a more precise and definite moment when it last occurred. Indeed you are more likely to hear "it hasn't happened for 103 years" or something like that. "Haven't had it in a hundred years is a looser, more general remark that may not have exactitude.
    – WS2
    Commented Jan 5, 2023 at 11:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .