Could you let me know about what difference of usage between ”because” and ”for” which have the same meaning of reason.
.
To quote Michael Swan:
[i]Because puts more emphasis on the reason, and most often introduces new information. When the reason is the most important part of the sentence, the because-clause usually comes at the end. It can also stand alone.
For introduces new information, but suggests that the reason is given as an afterthought. For-clauses never come at the beginning of sentences, and cannot stand alone. For used in this sense is a formal written style[/i].
That about sums it up.
.
Just to add to what Mister Micawber said, I’d recommend not using for or as in this way when speaking. They’re very unusual in speech.
For clauses certainly do come at the beginning of sentences. This is because for is a coordinating conjunction, so the clause is independent (and can stand alone). Apparently, Michael Swan wrongly thinks the conjunction is subordinate as he confuses its causal meaning with subordinates because and as.
In fact, for clauses are often seen at the beginning of a sentence in the real world, just as appropriately and correctly as you see and and but at the beginning of a sentence – provided it isn’t a fragment.
Hello, Jotham-- and welcome to English-test.
Could you supply an example of a fronted ‘for’ clause from some authentic source? I cannot think of one.
Thanks.
I’d love to. If you don’t have Bryan Garner’s Modern American Usage, I think that is a superb source for getting balanced advice from a prescriptive point of view. Garner understands the world of linguists and keeps up with their views, and researches examples in the real world of writers and journalists to back him up.
Garner’s examples of “for” at the beginning of independent clauses are thus:
You (and Garner) are confusing utterances and ‘sentences’, Jotham. All of the ‘for’ clauses that you have presented follow upon the previous independent clauses semantically; they carry no meaning otherwise, so they are not independent. Notice that they always ‘come at the beginning of sentences’ because there is no following clause at all. Whether there is merely a period or not does not define a meaningful sentence. Your examples are, in prescriptive parlance, merely fragments.
Now you’re playing with rhetoric on me. I never said they stand out independently, per se. Neither do “and” or “but” clauses. We’re talking about conjunctions here! Come on. I said they are independent clauses, which means they have equal importance with the clause they are joined with. They aren’t less important or subordinate to the other, which is why we can appropriately split them into sentences without being a fragment.
Then you’d have to say the same for “and” or “but” clauses. I don’t know – do you also believe they can’t start a sentence as well?
At any rate, you can say, “Our job is to study our fellow animals caught in the cages and learn from them. For they are us.” But you can’t say “For they are us, our job is to study our fellow animals caught in the cages and learn from them.” That’s because we’re dealing with a coordinating conjunction. If it were subordinating, you could make the switch.
“Our job is to study our fellow animals caught in the cages and learn from them, because they are us.” “Because they are us, our job is to study our fellow animals caught in the cages and learn from them.”
These sentences sound weird because I’m trying to join two perfectly independent clauses with a subordinator. But they work well enough that you can get my point about the nature of subordinators.
Yes, I am just playing with you. Linguists take different views of what a complete, independent utterance is, and if you think ‘Yoicks!’ is one, then I’m not really interested in arguing about whether final punctuation makes the sentence or not. However, you chose to argue originally outside the point being made: that ‘for’ (like ‘and’ and ‘but’, incidentally) cannot start a sentence– a complex or compound sentence.
You can write:
I threw up, because I was sick / Because I was sick, I threw up.
But you cannot write:
(X) For I was sick, I threw up instead of I threw up, for I was sick.
Just as you cannot write:
And I threw up I was sick instead of I was sick and I threw up.
If you have something to say against that, then do so, but otherwise, you have simply hijacked the thread.
As because says something else , emphasize to an important reason for example. because you didn’t come.
for is not one with because as i guess, plz share an example with us
Regards
There are some examples above, Nehalmayur. What other examples would you like? (Please be specific.)
You mean to say I am misinterpreting Michael Swan? So when he says, For-clauses never come at the beginning of sentences, what he really means is that the for clause isn’t the first clause of the two complementary clauses?
And when he says and cannot stand alone, what he really means is it shouldn’t appear without a complementary clause at all?
And so being unconcerned with sentence periods or where sentences break, does that imply he thinks it quite all right after all to start a sentence with “for” provided the preceding sentence contains it’s antecedent clause?
Well, it sure is a funny way of writing about it. But just one thing: why would he say because clause stands alone? Is he suggesting one could say “because he is sick” without any precedent at all, unlike “for”?
The original poster asked about the usage of “for.” Whether or not '“for” can appropriately start a sentence certainly constitutes usage of “for.”
Yes to your first and the second was my own comment (not Swan’s), and he says nothing there about your third enquiry. The section is only discussing the first question (about the 1st of 2 clauses).
i guess that was straightforward Mister’s
Well i would say again i was saying about related query 
Regards
Royals