I recently got a message that says
Haven't heard anything from you in a while.
I always thought that the right way to say this would be to use for insdead of in. Are both versions correct? Would there be a difference in meaning?
I'm trying to capture a vague idea floating in my head. Not sure I can explain adequately.
First off, both "in a while" and "for a while" are grammatical and idiomatic per se. However, to me, "for a while" would mean that their hearing from you is an ongoing process, which you interrupted for some time — or well, for a while —, but then resumed. Which is not what the sentence is supposed to express.
What you want instead is "in a while", which also means "for some period of time" but without implying that the contact has been re-established already, or indeed ever will be. Which is the whole point of that sentence, after all. It's just a reminder that it should be.
So I would most definitely say, "Haven't heard anything from you in a while".
This might be just my dialect/idiolect, though. I haven't checked any corpora.
The sentence you give should be:
No difference in meaning in this case, at least, not to my knowledge in American English, and not in my idiolect. But there would in these cases:
The distinction between for
These phrases have similar meanings. They are not usually interchangeable, but there's one exception.
for a while
This phrase indicates a limited, continuous time period. If you go on vacation for a week, you will be gone continuously until a week has passed and then return.
not for a while
If you won't return from vacation for a week, you will be absent for a week and then return. This usage implies a definite end to the period, although the exact timing may be vague (a while).
haven't for a while
If you haven't seen him for a week, then he was absent for that duration. Because for indicates a limited time, this often implies that the absence has ended (as RegDwighт suggests). However, when talking about a fixed time leading up to the present, it may simply note that the time period has ended, not the action.
in a while
This phrase indicates a time some distance away – usually, but not always, in the future. If you go on vacation in a week, you will not leave until a week from now.
not in a while
If you won't return from vacation in a week, then you will still be gone a week from now, with no indication of when you will actually return. This usage typically indicates a deviation from plans or expectations: We can't get the job done in a month.
haven't in a while
If you haven't seen him in a week, then he disappeared a week before now. This usage indicates a time some distance in the past. There is no implication that the period has ended.
For the example in the question, haven't for a while and haven't in a while are roughly interchangeable. For carries a weak implication that the absence has ended; in does not.
Correct Standard English dictates:
If the action or non-action belongs in the past and continues in the present, then it is more fluent Standard English to use for:
If the action belongs in the future, then, and only then, is "in a while" correct.
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?