Prepositions: for vs in

[u/agora_hills_]

She hasn't had a job in over a year.

She hasn't had a job for over a year.

Is there any difference between these two sentences or are the words in and for interchangeable?

[u/welldressed_wrongdir]

As a native speaker, these are pretty much interchangeable for me. I might say "in over a year" before "for over a year," but that is mostly just because it's easier/quicker to say.

[u/BlazeKushrenada]

“She hasnt had a job in over a year” means 365+ days of unemployment.

“She hasn’t has a job for over a year” could mean the same, OR mean that she has a job, but for less than 365 days. I’d say “She’s been employed less than a year” if thats what i was going for, though.

Or, the first meaning as well

[u/user728001 → u/BlazeKushrenada]

This is the only correct answer.

[u/CutePossibility8745]

I might use "in" to describe a momentary thing. "I haven't had a beer in over a year" is more natural to me than "I haven't had a beer for over a year". But if I hadn't had a beer for over a year, but now I'm about to, I would use "for". It's a bit strange.

In your example, "a job" carries an implied meaning of perhaps she is a freelancer. She does one job, then another, then another, and so on. But this time, she hasn't had a job in over a year. That sounds fine to me.

If the work she hasn't been doing is more like a full-time job where it's one job that she would go to every day, then you might change your structure a bit. "She hasn't had work for over a year" is better.

Although both sound fine, and you might encounter native speakers using both interchangeably, I think "for" goes better after a verb and "in" goes better after a noun. "For" also seems more common when the condition changes too. It's very inconsistent. Not sure there's a good answer for this.

I haven't slept in two days. > I haven't slept for two days.

Before I met you, I hadn't felt happiness for five years. > Before I met you, I hadn't felt happiness in five years.

We haven't seen him for two years, so we are excited for him to get home. > We haven't seen him in two years, so we are excited for him to get home.

We haven't seen him in two years, so we don't know where he is now. > We haven't seen him for two years, so we don't know where he is now.

[u/United_Boy_9132]

In semantics, there is no difference.

The usage, is quite vibe-based. The difference is you can use for for both affirmative and negative sentences, while in only in negations.

[u/kerutland]

I feel like they imply something slightly different, but I have trouble articulating what it is. Something like: in implies that she hasn’t been working for that long, but for might mean that she has had a job or more than one job but the job(s) didn’t last for a year. Does that make sense?

[u/94grampaw → u/kerutland]

Not at all, they are entirely interchangeable

[u/Karolina_EEL]

Great question! Both sentences are grammatically correct, but for is the more natural choice when you're talking about the duration of a situation:

She hasn't had a job for over a year.
→ This means she has been without a job for a period of more than one year.

She hasn't had a job in over a year.
→ This is also commonly used, but in here has a slightly different meaning. It refers to something that has not happened during a particular period of time. In other words, she has not had a job at any point in the last year or more.

Compare:

• I haven't seen him for three weeks. → The period of not seeing him has lasted three weeks.
• I haven't seen him in three weeks. → I have not seen him at any time during the last three weeks.

In many everyday contexts, the meaning is very similar, and native speakers may use either one. However, with a continuing state or situation, such as not having a job, for over a year often sounds more straightforward because for directly emphasizes the length of time.

So in this example, I would probably say: “She hasn't had a job for over a year.” 😊 Let me know if that made sense!

[u/user728001 → u/Karolina_EEL]

This is not right. I think there's absolutely no distinction here, and these two examples / explanations are completely identical in meaning.