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

Nowadays, I always use the following phrase when I am ending formal email;

I eagerly await for your response.


I've seen this phrase somewhere, kind-of a formal e-mail and I am using it since then instead of always saying I look forward to your response.

I would like to know if it is suitable to use that phrase for formal email.

share|improve this question
Not what you asked, so this is a comment and not an answer, but "await for" is not quite right. You "await" or you "wait for", but not "await for". – Monica Cellio Jun 5 '11 at 21:07
@monica hmm, never thought of that. thanks. – tugberk Jun 5 '11 at 21:11
Do you really eagerly await a response to every formal email you send? I know I sure don't. – snumpy Jun 8 '11 at 12:46
@snumpy yes, I do. – tugberk Jun 8 '11 at 21:44
up vote 8 down vote accepted

It really depends on how eager you wish to seem. If you don't mind coming off a little strong, it's fine. But you could convey nearly the same level of enthusiasm by simply saying "I look forward to hearing from you." That is only if using eagerly would make you seem too desperate.

share|improve this answer
All true, but depending on context, "eagerly awaiting" might come across as a somewhat impertinent request for promptness (or even any response at all). For example, if you were emailing a senior politician who mightn't have the time or the inclination to respond to every email he gets. – FumbleFingers Jun 5 '11 at 23:06
@FumbleFingers: If I were emailing a senior politician, who works for me, I might just expect him to have the inclination, if not the time, to respond to my emails. – Robusto Mar 7 '13 at 14:53

Yes, this would be acceptable, however I would change it a bit.

I eagerly await your response.

share|improve this answer
@ham ok now you ruin my day with this answer, officially :s tell me that: from 1 to 10, how badly can a person look like if s/he uses this phrase for like a two month inside informal e-mails? 10 is horrible, 1 is not at all – tugberk Jun 5 '11 at 21:09
Why would you not use this in a formal email? – Marcin Jun 5 '11 at 21:10
Round about 4 actually, 'cos it's likely not many people will actually realise it. – Thursagen Jun 5 '11 at 21:11
Because, it's... not formal? I mean, it's just like saying to the queen "Hey, that dress you are wearing is so cool!". It isn't formal. You'd probably have said," Your attire today is very becoming!" – Thursagen Jun 5 '11 at 21:14
What's informal about "eagerly"? It's not a slang term. – Marcin Jun 5 '11 at 21:15

I would say this is completely acceptable. I have used "I await your reply eagerly" in formal letters also, although obviously not when I wanted to be snotty.

share|improve this answer
@marcin ok now I am confused :s – tugberk Jun 5 '11 at 21:12
Well, it's grammatically incorrect, but the use of "eagerly" is not the problem. – Marcin Jun 5 '11 at 21:13
@Marcin how about I eagerly await your response ? Would that be grammaticality correct? – tugberk Jun 5 '11 at 21:15
@Marcin: Are you sure about that? Neither adjective position seems at all informal to me... – psmears Jun 6 '11 at 13:30
@Marcin: On what evidence do you base that certainty? Usually the difference in adverb position between pre-main-verb and sentence-final is one of emphasis - "I'll happily do that" versus "I'll do that happily" - not one of formality. Indeed, in oaths - surely one of the most formal uses there are - forms such as I solemnly swear abound. (The US presidential oath uses this form, as does one version of the UK parliamentary oath of allegiance‌​.) – psmears Jun 6 '11 at 21:56

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.