4

Are the meanings of these three sentences different?

  1. I won’t be surprised if my electricity is cut off. I haven’t paid the bill in three months.

  2. I won’t be surprised if my electricity is cut off. I haven’t paid the bill for three months.

  3. I won’t be surprised if my electricity is cut off. I haven’t paid the bill for the last three months.

Improve this question
3
  • 2
    No. (1) looks like American usage to me, (2) is British usage and (3) spells it out more precisely.
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Mar 8, 2023 at 14:06
  • @KateBunting Thank you very much.
    – user157844
    Commented Mar 8, 2023 at 14:10
  • 1
    Undeniably, there are several possible meanings, and none of the above unambiguously admit of only a single meaning. If being precise is important to the speaker he probably needs to use a lot more words.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Mar 9, 2023 at 13:08

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
3

The in [period of time] form (which is now common, whereas a century ago it was almost always for) is significantly more likely when the "period of time" is just years, months, weeks,...

As this chart shows, although in years is now significantly more common than semantically equivalent for years, when the period is quantified as, say, two years, the for version is still slightly more common. We can reasonably expect in to win out more decisively in future, but I'm never gonna like I haven't paid my bill in the last three months.

enter image description here

Note that I multiplied the occurrence counts for the "quantified" versions by 4, so they'd fit on the same chart (we're only interested in the ratio there, not the absolute values).

As regards meaning, all of OP's alternatives are equivalent. They're all "acceptable", but the first one is the most natural version today.

Improve this answer
7
  • 1
    I'm, obviously behind the times. If you select for British English in that Ngrams search, for is more common but in is rapidly catching up with it.
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Mar 8, 2023 at 17:09
  • 2
    I usually make a point of checking NGrams for any significant US/UK usage difference if I have even a vague sense that there might be one. It just never occurred to me on this one - but having just compared the two charts, I think it's basically just that the meteoric ascendance of in displacing for happened about half a century ago in AmE, but it was a couple of decades later in BrE.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Mar 8, 2023 at 17:29
  • Thank you very much.
    – user157844
    Commented Mar 8, 2023 at 22:10
  • 1
    Worth noting: The three options given in the question don’t necessarily mean the same thing. The first two are almost certainly equivalent, meaning that I receive a bill each month, but for the past three months, I haven’t paid (I now have three outstanding bills); but the third can also mean that I pay quarterly, so I receive one bill every three months, but I haven’t paid the one covering the past three months (I have one outstanding bill).
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Commented Mar 9, 2023 at 12:23
  • 1
    @JanusBahsJacquet: Sorry, but I can't agree. All versions are ambiguous, and much depends on how we expect the bills to be raised (monthly, quarterly, annually,...). But I can easily convince myself #1 is more likely in the sense of I'm billed monthly, but haven't paid the last three bills, whereas #2 might mean I'm billed annually, but the last bill was three months ago and I still haven't paid it. And #3 could carry the first of those senses, OR it might mean I'm billed quarterly, but haven't paid the latest bill (perhaps only received fairly recently).
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Mar 9, 2023 at 13:05
4

In this context, where the period is in the past, there is no significant difference in meaning. All three quoted sentences have the same meaning. The answer by Fumblefingers and the comments by Kate Bunting clarify relative frequency of usage.

But when the period is in the future, the two forms have significantly different meanings.

  • (1) The rental will be available in three months.
  • (2) The rental will be available for three months.

Sentence (1) means that the rental will be available starting three months in the future. But (2) means that the rental will only be available for a period of three months, probably starting right away, unless a further statement clarifies this. In this context the different prepositions carry different meanings.

In the context of the duration of an event, only some forms are acceptable.

  • (3) He was able to get the job done in two weeks.
  • (4) He was able to get the job done for two weeks.

Here sentence (3) mans that the job was accomplished within a time span of two weeks. But (4) has a very different meaning (which I missed, thanks to John Bollinger for pointing it out). It means that he was able to perform the job for a period of two weeks, but not after that.

So the difference, if an, between "in {period of time}" and "for {period of time}" depends on the semantic context, that is, on the meaning of the text of which it is a part.

Improve this answer
4
  • Thank you very much.
    – user157844
    Commented Mar 8, 2023 at 22:10
  • 1
    (4) is perfectly valid in standard English, but it means something different than (3). Consider this augmentation: "He was able to get the job done for two weeks, then he burned out." The "in" form implies completion, as you say. The "for" form conveys duration but not (necessarily) completion. Consider also "He was able to backpack in Europe for two weeks", which has the same form.
    – John Bollinger
    Commented Mar 8, 2023 at 22:51
  • 1
    @John Bollinger You have a point. I will edit my answer to take account of it.
    – David Siegel
    Commented Mar 9, 2023 at 4:33
  • 1
    @John’s interpretation didn’t occur to me either because get the job done so strongly implies completion that it almost rules out (4) as being valid. If you modify it to do the job, it becomes much clearer: “He was able to do the job in two weeks” (completion) vs “He was able to do the job for two weeks [before burning out/quitting in disgust/etc.]” (non-completion).
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Commented Mar 9, 2023 at 12:26
0

They have essentially the same meaning, although I'd say the first is the most unclear and the last is the clearest, if you want your meaning to be very explicit.

"In three months" can refer to either the past or the future, so there is some potential room for confusion if the rest of the context might lead someone to think you were talking about the future, whereas the last two obviously refer to the past. Although the sentence you have given in your example should make it fairly clear you're talking about the past so it's unlikely to confuse anybody.

When referring to the past, "in" is most commonly used in a more vague way, i.e. "I haven’t paid the bill in months", which would, again, be similar in meaning to the examples you've given but is more vague about exactly how many months.

Improve this answer
1
  • Thank you very much.
    – user157844
    Commented Mar 10, 2023 at 21:09

You must log in to answer this question.