When I recall the short way of remembering a list of the conjunctions, FANBOYS, for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so, how could for be used as a conjunction? Could it be used in

Justin and Mark could not see, for they were blind.

closed as off-topic by RegDwigнt Oct 29 '14 at 16:27

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions that can be answered using commonly-available references are off-topic. A list of these references can be found here: List of general references" – RegDwigнt
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Shouldn't it be could not see? for means because. – Barmar Oct 29 '14 at 16:04
  • What does this question have to do with choosing between to and for? There's nothing about to in the question. – Barmar Oct 29 '14 at 16:05
  • @Barmar I fixed both of them now. – JoeyChor Oct 29 '14 at 16:09
  • Anyway, the answer to your question is in the dictionary. – Barmar Oct 29 '14 at 16:11

Justin and Mark could not see, for they were blind.

The sentence makes sense and is correct. There's a saying "can't see the forest for the trees" which also uses for in this way. However, this construction is formal sounding and maybe a little old fashioned. Most people would say:

Justin and Mark could not see because they were blind.

  • So it's just of a matter of preference and the time period? – JoeyChor Oct 29 '14 at 16:13
  • pretty much. it's not that it's archaic or anything; the construction makes sense in speech today, it's just a little formal. – ell Oct 29 '14 at 16:16
  • @JoeyChor there's a question for that. – RegDwigнt Oct 29 '14 at 16:28

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