Timeline for Using 'for' as a coordinating conjunction at the beginning of a sentence – is this acceptable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2022 at 20:37 | comment | added | tchrist♦ | Related. | |
| Jan 28, 2020 at 16:15 | comment | added | HeWhoMustBeNamed | @Shoe, can you tell me of some good references to learn more about the distinction between subordinating and coordinating conjunctions and the clauses they are respectively said to subordinate and coordinate? | |
| Jan 1, 2014 at 12:57 | comment | added | Barrie England | It is, and for that reason OP needs to be careful about using it. | |
| Jan 1, 2014 at 11:55 | comment | added | Shoe | @Barrie, Yes, the Cambridge Grammar is correct in noting that, like other subordinating conjunctions, for indicates "a dependent relationship between the clauses [it introduces] and the main clause" (p488). But it behaves differently from the others the CG lists in that cannot be fronted, which I think is the OP's main concern. As an aside, using for to mean because feels rather old-fashioned to me, and much more likely to be encountered in stories than everyday spoken English. | |
| Jan 1, 2014 at 11:38 | comment | added | Barrie England | I question the claim that for Is a coordinator. It means because, which is undeniably a subordinator. In the ‘Cambridge Grammar of English’ (which is not the CGEL), Carter and McCarthy include for in a list of subordinators and write explicitly in another part of the book that it is a subordinating conjunction. | |
| Jan 1, 2014 at 11:21 | vote | accept | F. Underwood | ||
| Jan 1, 2014 at 11:14 | history | edited | Shoe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2014 at 11:08 | history | answered | Shoe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |