When did British and American English split on “in future” vs. “in the future”?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
2
I'm curious if it's possible to document roughly when the split happened, and also curious whether British or American usage diverged.
etymology american-english british-english
edited 2 days ago
Glorfindel
8,899114243
asked Jan 8 '17 at 15:02
MichaelChiricoMichaelChirico
18210
add a comment |
2
I'm curious if it's possible to document roughly when the split happened, and also curious whether British or American usage diverged.
etymology american-english british-english
edited 2 days ago
Glorfindel
8,899114243
asked Jan 8 '17 at 15:02
MichaelChiricoMichaelChirico
18210
1
This question, unlike the marked duplicate, asks about the history of these phrases, not their meaning; voting to reopen.
– Nathaniel
Jan 9 '17 at 14:16
@Nathaniel thanks... some half-hearted efforts in the review queue going on here...
– MichaelChirico
Jan 9 '17 at 14:20
add a comment |
2
2
2
1
I'm curious if it's possible to document roughly when the split happened, and also curious whether British or American usage diverged.
etymology american-english british-english
edited 2 days ago
Glorfindel
8,899114243
asked Jan 8 '17 at 15:02
MichaelChiricoMichaelChirico
18210
I'm curious if it's possible to document roughly when the split happened, and also curious whether British or American usage diverged.
etymology american-english british-english
etymology american-english british-english
edited 2 days ago
Glorfindel
8,899114243
asked Jan 8 '17 at 15:02
MichaelChiricoMichaelChirico
18210
edited 2 days ago
Glorfindel
8,899114243
asked Jan 8 '17 at 15:02
MichaelChiricoMichaelChirico
18210
edited 2 days ago
Glorfindel
8,899114243
edited 2 days ago
Glorfindel
8,899114243
edited 2 days ago
Glorfindel
8,899114243
8,899114243
asked Jan 8 '17 at 15:02
MichaelChiricoMichaelChirico
18210
asked Jan 8 '17 at 15:02
MichaelChiricoMichaelChirico
18210
asked Jan 8 '17 at 15:02
MichaelChiricoMichaelChirico
18210
18210
1
This question, unlike the marked duplicate, asks about the history of these phrases, not their meaning; voting to reopen.
– Nathaniel
Jan 9 '17 at 14:16
@Nathaniel thanks... some half-hearted efforts in the review queue going on here...
– MichaelChirico
Jan 9 '17 at 14:20
add a comment |
1
This question, unlike the marked duplicate, asks about the history of these phrases, not their meaning; voting to reopen.
– Nathaniel
Jan 9 '17 at 14:16
@Nathaniel thanks... some half-hearted efforts in the review queue going on here...
– MichaelChirico
Jan 9 '17 at 14:20
1
1
This question, unlike the marked duplicate, asks about the history of these phrases, not their meaning; voting to reopen.
– Nathaniel
Jan 9 '17 at 14:16
This question, unlike the marked duplicate, asks about the history of these phrases, not their meaning; voting to reopen.
– Nathaniel
Jan 9 '17 at 14:16
@Nathaniel thanks... some half-hearted efforts in the review queue going on here...
– MichaelChirico
Jan 9 '17 at 14:20
@Nathaniel thanks... some half-hearted efforts in the review queue going on here...
– MichaelChirico
Jan 9 '17 at 14:20
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
3
If you look at this Google Ngram, you see that both Brits and Americans used to use "in future", and this expression is being replaced by "in the future" both places. It's just that in the U.S., the replacement is now almost complete while in the U.K. it is still happening.
When did this split happen? The replacement was quite gradual, so it's hard to narrow it down to something shorter than "the last half of the 19th century".
answered Jan 8 '17 at 15:30
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63.3k5123229
could you explain the search tags you used? didn't know any such things were available on ngrams. is there a reference page?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:36
2
There's a reference page. The search tags future_NOUN, to eliminate uses of future as an adjective (i.e., in future centuries, etc.), which are still very common in the U.S. And :eng_us_2012, :eng_gb_2012, to narrow it down to American and British sources. (I believe this last piece has some misclassification, so the frequency of in future is probably even lower in the U.S. than is indicated by the Ngram.)
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:39
also, perhaps you can interpret the results before 1800 better? it looks to me like neither phrase was in widespread usage before 1800 or so... or is that just a reflection of data quality?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:40
The data quality gets fairly bad before 1800, but if you change the start date, it looks like in future started being used around 1750, and in the future started slightly later in the U.S.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:42
Actually, looking at usages of in the future before 1800 in Google Books, they seem mostly to be talking about grammar (i.e., future means future tense). So I'd guess that in the future didn't start replacing in future until the early 19th century.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:52
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f367244%2fwhen-did-british-and-american-english-split-on-in-future-vs-in-the-future%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
3
If you look at this Google Ngram, you see that both Brits and Americans used to use "in future", and this expression is being replaced by "in the future" both places. It's just that in the U.S., the replacement is now almost complete while in the U.K. it is still happening.
When did this split happen? The replacement was quite gradual, so it's hard to narrow it down to something shorter than "the last half of the 19th century".
answered Jan 8 '17 at 15:30
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63.3k5123229
could you explain the search tags you used? didn't know any such things were available on ngrams. is there a reference page?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:36
2
There's a reference page. The search tags future_NOUN, to eliminate uses of future as an adjective (i.e., in future centuries, etc.), which are still very common in the U.S. And :eng_us_2012, :eng_gb_2012, to narrow it down to American and British sources. (I believe this last piece has some misclassification, so the frequency of in future is probably even lower in the U.S. than is indicated by the Ngram.)
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:39
also, perhaps you can interpret the results before 1800 better? it looks to me like neither phrase was in widespread usage before 1800 or so... or is that just a reflection of data quality?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:40
The data quality gets fairly bad before 1800, but if you change the start date, it looks like in future started being used around 1750, and in the future started slightly later in the U.S.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:42
Actually, looking at usages of in the future before 1800 in Google Books, they seem mostly to be talking about grammar (i.e., future means future tense). So I'd guess that in the future didn't start replacing in future until the early 19th century.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:52
|
show 2 more comments
3
If you look at this Google Ngram, you see that both Brits and Americans used to use "in future", and this expression is being replaced by "in the future" both places. It's just that in the U.S., the replacement is now almost complete while in the U.K. it is still happening.
When did this split happen? The replacement was quite gradual, so it's hard to narrow it down to something shorter than "the last half of the 19th century".
answered Jan 8 '17 at 15:30
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63.3k5123229
could you explain the search tags you used? didn't know any such things were available on ngrams. is there a reference page?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:36
2
There's a reference page. The search tags future_NOUN, to eliminate uses of future as an adjective (i.e., in future centuries, etc.), which are still very common in the U.S. And :eng_us_2012, :eng_gb_2012, to narrow it down to American and British sources. (I believe this last piece has some misclassification, so the frequency of in future is probably even lower in the U.S. than is indicated by the Ngram.)
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:39
also, perhaps you can interpret the results before 1800 better? it looks to me like neither phrase was in widespread usage before 1800 or so... or is that just a reflection of data quality?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:40
The data quality gets fairly bad before 1800, but if you change the start date, it looks like in future started being used around 1750, and in the future started slightly later in the U.S.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:42
Actually, looking at usages of in the future before 1800 in Google Books, they seem mostly to be talking about grammar (i.e., future means future tense). So I'd guess that in the future didn't start replacing in future until the early 19th century.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:52
|
show 2 more comments
3
3
3
If you look at this Google Ngram, you see that both Brits and Americans used to use "in future", and this expression is being replaced by "in the future" both places. It's just that in the U.S., the replacement is now almost complete while in the U.K. it is still happening.
When did this split happen? The replacement was quite gradual, so it's hard to narrow it down to something shorter than "the last half of the 19th century".
answered Jan 8 '17 at 15:30
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63.3k5123229
If you look at this Google Ngram, you see that both Brits and Americans used to use "in future", and this expression is being replaced by "in the future" both places. It's just that in the U.S., the replacement is now almost complete while in the U.K. it is still happening.
When did this split happen? The replacement was quite gradual, so it's hard to narrow it down to something shorter than "the last half of the 19th century".
answered Jan 8 '17 at 15:30
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63.3k5123229
edited Jan 8 '17 at 15:40
answered Jan 8 '17 at 15:30
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63.3k5123229
answered Jan 8 '17 at 15:30
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63.3k5123229
answered Jan 8 '17 at 15:30
Peter Shor Peter Shor
63.3k5123229
63.3k5123229
could you explain the search tags you used? didn't know any such things were available on ngrams. is there a reference page?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:36
2
There's a reference page. The search tags future_NOUN, to eliminate uses of future as an adjective (i.e., in future centuries, etc.), which are still very common in the U.S. And :eng_us_2012, :eng_gb_2012, to narrow it down to American and British sources. (I believe this last piece has some misclassification, so the frequency of in future is probably even lower in the U.S. than is indicated by the Ngram.)
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:39
also, perhaps you can interpret the results before 1800 better? it looks to me like neither phrase was in widespread usage before 1800 or so... or is that just a reflection of data quality?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:40
The data quality gets fairly bad before 1800, but if you change the start date, it looks like in future started being used around 1750, and in the future started slightly later in the U.S.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:42
Actually, looking at usages of in the future before 1800 in Google Books, they seem mostly to be talking about grammar (i.e., future means future tense). So I'd guess that in the future didn't start replacing in future until the early 19th century.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:52
|
show 2 more comments
could you explain the search tags you used? didn't know any such things were available on ngrams. is there a reference page?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:36
2
There's a reference page. The search tags future_NOUN, to eliminate uses of future as an adjective (i.e., in future centuries, etc.), which are still very common in the U.S. And :eng_us_2012, :eng_gb_2012, to narrow it down to American and British sources. (I believe this last piece has some misclassification, so the frequency of in future is probably even lower in the U.S. than is indicated by the Ngram.)
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:39
also, perhaps you can interpret the results before 1800 better? it looks to me like neither phrase was in widespread usage before 1800 or so... or is that just a reflection of data quality?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:40
The data quality gets fairly bad before 1800, but if you change the start date, it looks like in future started being used around 1750, and in the future started slightly later in the U.S.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:42
Actually, looking at usages of in the future before 1800 in Google Books, they seem mostly to be talking about grammar (i.e., future means future tense). So I'd guess that in the future didn't start replacing in future until the early 19th century.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:52
could you explain the search tags you used? didn't know any such things were available on ngrams. is there a reference page?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:36
could you explain the search tags you used? didn't know any such things were available on ngrams. is there a reference page?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:36
2
2
There's a reference page. The search tags future_NOUN, to eliminate uses of future as an adjective (i.e., in future centuries, etc.), which are still very common in the U.S. And :eng_us_2012, :eng_gb_2012, to narrow it down to American and British sources. (I believe this last piece has some misclassification, so the frequency of in future is probably even lower in the U.S. than is indicated by the Ngram.)
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:39
There's a reference page. The search tags future_NOUN, to eliminate uses of future as an adjective (i.e., in future centuries, etc.), which are still very common in the U.S. And :eng_us_2012, :eng_gb_2012, to narrow it down to American and British sources. (I believe this last piece has some misclassification, so the frequency of in future is probably even lower in the U.S. than is indicated by the Ngram.)
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:39
also, perhaps you can interpret the results before 1800 better? it looks to me like neither phrase was in widespread usage before 1800 or so... or is that just a reflection of data quality?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:40
also, perhaps you can interpret the results before 1800 better? it looks to me like neither phrase was in widespread usage before 1800 or so... or is that just a reflection of data quality?
– MichaelChirico
Jan 8 '17 at 15:40
The data quality gets fairly bad before 1800, but if you change the start date, it looks like in future started being used around 1750, and in the future started slightly later in the U.S.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:42
The data quality gets fairly bad before 1800, but if you change the start date, it looks like in future started being used around 1750, and in the future started slightly later in the U.S.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:42
Actually, looking at usages of in the future before 1800 in Google Books, they seem mostly to be talking about grammar (i.e., future means future tense). So I'd guess that in the future didn't start replacing in future until the early 19th century.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:52
Actually, looking at usages of in the future before 1800 in Google Books, they seem mostly to be talking about grammar (i.e., future means future tense). So I'd guess that in the future didn't start replacing in future until the early 19th century.
– Peter Shor
Jan 8 '17 at 15:52
|
show 2 more comments
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f367244%2fwhen-did-british-and-american-english-split-on-in-future-vs-in-the-future%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
This question, unlike the marked duplicate, asks about the history of these phrases, not their meaning; voting to reopen.
– Nathaniel
Jan 9 '17 at 14:16
@Nathaniel thanks... some half-hearted efforts in the review queue going on here...
– MichaelChirico
Jan 9 '17 at 14:20