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.

  • 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.
    – user428517
    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.