English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am writing a manual for user to use a web application.

One of the function requires user to key in the date, and then the number of weeks before that date, the number of weeks needs to be smaller than 52 weeks and greater than 25 weeks. But I think the phrase "smaller than 52 weeks and greater than 25 weeks" is a bit too clumsy, is the following OK?

Number of weeks for data retrieval is limited within 25 to 52 weeks.

I wonder if limited within or limited between is grammatically correct.

share|improve this question
up vote 8 down vote accepted

If I absolutely had to choose between these two alternatives, I would pick "limited between", but generally speaking, I would go with "limited to", as in:

The number of weeks for data retrieval is limited to 25–52.

(Notes: that's an en dash, I've added a the, and I don't repeat the word weeks.)

The British National Corpus does not have a single cite for "limited between" or "limited within", but it has 1343 cites for "limited to", including several cites for value ranges, e.g.:

  • [...] limited to 1 to 1.5p on a pint of beer [...]
  • [...] limited to 15 to 18 per cent for a transitional period [...]

It even has two cites for "limited to between" (but again, none for just "limited between").

share|improve this answer
+1 for using the British National Corpus – lokheart Jul 25 '14 at 4:25

I'd re-write it like this:

Number of weeks for data retrieval must be between 25 and 52.

share|improve this answer
"...inclusive". Otherwise a mathematician, computer scientist, or logician would first read this as 26-51 being the valid values. (And then probably decide that's not what you meant, but why introduce the ambiguity?) – Monica Cellio Jul 18 '11 at 12:49

Would a simple:

number of weeks (range: 25 to 52)

be enough?

share|improve this answer

What's your audience?

I ask because mathematicians, engineers and scientists have a precise way of communicating non-inclusive ranges:

  • x is in (25, 52)

  • 25 < x < 52

If you have a sufficiently technical audience, they'll know what that means.

share|improve this answer
Hah, you beat me to the punch. It's square brackets for inclusive endpoints of intervals, though. – Jon Purdy Nov 9 '10 at 17:57

Both "limited within" and "limited between" sound to me like in a certain time interval, data retrieval is limited (so if it's now 53 weeks since [something], retrieval is unlimited, while last week, it was limited). Naturally, this makes no sense in context, so there's definitely a problem somewhere.

The best solution is probably something like what VonC suggested: label the field with text that identifies the nature of the value to be entered, and then separately provide a range of valid values.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.