0

Given the following sentence:

"Will, so-called for it was short for William, drank his tea."

Is it grammatical to omit 'it was' so that the sentence becomes:

"Will, so-called for short for William, drank his tea."

I have seen Collins list a literary preposition usage of 'for', being: "...doing jobs that others turn down for lack of skill." Which could be rephrased "...doing jobs that others turn down for their lack of skill." Which could start with the proper noun, "William enjoys doing jobs that others turn down for their lack of skill."

If the inclusion of 'their' in the above is optional, would 'it was' in the opening example also be optional?

p.s. I think the title of my question is terrible, if anyone has a suggestion I will be happy to change it.

Edit 1: Thanks for the early comments. I can't comment as not enough Rep so I'll leave this edit instead. The question is not based in a desire to do something particular but actually arose from a discussion I had with my brother last night. It is a question for the sake of itself rather than me having a specific example which I am trying to change. Specifically, I suppose, my question is, is the following grammatical: "Will, so-called for short for William, drank his tea.". It is awkward and nobody would use it day to day, but my mind is seldom concerned with practicality these days!

4
  • 5
    I think your first example would usually be just "Will, short for William, drank his tea." Commented Dec 13, 2023 at 10:46
  • Yes, "Will, so-called for it was short for William, drank his tea" is grammatical but I can't imagine anyone actually writing it. "Will, so-called because it was short for William" would be more common if you really wanted to explain. "for lack of"/"for want of" are common (at least in writing), but "lack", "want", etc, are nouns and can't just be replaced by an adjective. I'm not really understanding what you actually want - do you just want to shorten your original sentence, are you interested in "for lack of skill", or do you have another question?
    – Stuart F
    Commented Dec 13, 2023 at 10:50
  • 1
    There would be no need to explain a common nickname. And you want "so called" not "so-called", as the latter form is adjectival. "The Miracle Mile, so called for its array of fashionable and expensive shops, attracts many tourists." vs "He despised the glitz of this so-called 'Miracle' mile."
    – TimR
    Commented Dec 13, 2023 at 11:37
  • “William, (called) Will for short, …” Commented May 12 at 4:04

1 Answer 1

1

In your first example, for is (in traditional grammar terms) a conjunction that means because:

Will, so called because it was short for William, drank his tea.

If you remove it was, for can’t mean because:

*Will, so called because short for William, drank his tea. (incorrect)

Awfully awkward but not incorrect is:

Will, so called for short for William, drank his tea.

There, for short is an idiom that means as an abbreviation (so for could be thought of as a preposition):

Will, so called as an abbreviation for William, drank his tea.

But now that the “cause” is gone, you have altered the sense a little.

Note: That was just an exercise; all of the above are bad.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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