2

I have a record of transactions that "goes back to 2011", but is there a better way to say that? I'm considering "a record that extends back to 2011", but I find both phrases a bit too colloquial.

  • 1
    Neither is "too colloquial" for my taste, unless perhaps you're applying for a job as manservant to the Queen of England. – Robusto Dec 20 '17 at 15:07
  • Continuing states and regularly repeated events are often said to date from some time in the past. – John Lawler Dec 20 '17 at 16:02
2

You may use date from or date back

date from: to have existed since a particular time in the past

These masterly cantatas date from different periods in Bach's life.

date back: to have existed for a particular length of time or since a particular time:

This tradition dates back to medieval times.

Please check Cambridge dictionary

1

I am in agreement with @Robusto that "goes back to" is fine for everyday usage.

However, if more formality is required, how about:

This reverses the direction of time to a forward direction (as opposed to "going back to"), and gives a sense of ongoing continuity of records, although you will likely need to be more exact about the starting date of your transactions - "commencing 2011" is likely to arouse suspicion - a month, and ideally an exact date would be preferable.

However, arguably this does not convey the continuity of records - IMO, originating would be more applicable to a single, specific document.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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