0

What is the difference between the two sentences?

I have not played hockey in six years.
I have not played hockey for six years.

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

I don't think there is all that much of a discernible difference. If one of my friends told me,

"I have not played hockey in six years,"

and another said,

"I have not played hockey for six years,"

then I would assume both of them are former hockey players, but neither of them had laced up their hockey skates over the past six years.

Prepositions are very flexible words that sometimes have overlapping meanings. One definition of in is:

in (preposition) used for showing when something happens within a period of time
(Macmillan, definition 4c)

while one definition of for is:

for (preposition) used for saying a length of time; in particular, for how long something lasts or continues
(Macmillan, definition 3a)

Therefore, either preposition can be used to explain how long it has been since someone has last done something.

Again, I'd say the two sentences are more synonymous than different.

Improve this answer
1
  • Indeed, I would interpret the meaning as being the same, but only because of the negation.
    – nschneid
    Oct 11, 2021 at 23:16
0

The difference here is that of a point and an interval. I have not played hockey (not even once) in six years. I have not played hockey for six years (straight).

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    I disagree. While "for" could be interpreted in that way here, it would be a strange way of saying it (and it's a strange thing to say). I think most people would interpret it here (in the negative) as a synonym for "in". The only counter-example I can think of is in reference to a question of whether someone has played hockey for specifically 6 years.
    – Will Vousden
    Jun 1, 2020 at 19:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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