For

Question

Hello, teachers.I'd like to ask you for help. Please.I read some sentences which have for before an infinitive,such as:1#We like for the kids to see themselves onstage2#I want for people to think highly of me.My question is what the writer did this for. To emphasize?  Bergen Evans said :we do not say Z want that you should come and thereforeZ want for you to come is also unacceptable.(A Dictionary Of Contemporary American Usage)As he said, 2# was unacceptable. However, we can find so many examples in COCA. What's happening? Has the use of want changed?I would thank you so much.

Mr Wordy · Accepted Answer

In standard English, the word "for" is not needed, and I would normally consider this usage incorrect in written English (except when transcribing dialogue). However, in spoken English it's arguably more a feature of a person's dialect than a clear error. Having said that, I wouldn't recommend that you copy the usage. The word "for" does not, for me, add any emphasis or change the meaning at all.

I am a British English speaker. It's possible that there are usage differences between AmE and BrE.

Norwolf · Answer

Mr WordyIn standard English, the word "for" is not needed, and I would normally consider this usage incorrect in written English (except when transcribing dialogue). However, in spoken English it's arguably more a feature of a person's dialect than a clear error. Having said that, I wouldn't recommend that you copy the usage. The word "for" does not, for me, add any emphasis or change the meaning at all.

I am a British English speaker. It's possible that there are usage differences between AmE and BrE.

Thanks a lot, Mr Wordy.

Oh, dear American English speakers, your views, please.

CalifJim · Answer

I am an American, and I am in complete agreement with Mr Wordy's explanations and advice. I do not sense any difference whatsoever between AmE and BrE usage where these kinds of constructions are concerned.

CJ

Falconer · Answer

Note that "want for" is an idiom meaning "to lack" or "to need" something, e.g. "If you want for courage, you need but find some."

Norwolf · Answer

Hey, my friends. I am still confused.

According to Bergen Evans:

In current English for is used to introduce, or
to mark, the subject of an infinitive, as in there
was no need for you to leave and I am glad for
you to have it. When the infinitive and all the
words that go with it are attached to a noun or
an adjective, as they are in these examples, this
use of for is unquestionably literary English.
But sometimes they are the object of a verb, as
in the doctor said for him to take a walk. Twenty
or thirty years ago sentences of this kind were
not considered standard and a that-clause, such
as the doctor said that he should take a walk,
was the only acceptable construction. But the
use of the infinitive has increased enormously
during the last thirty or forty years. It seems
to be replacing the that-clauses which require a
subjunctive or subjunctive equivalent verb. In
the United States for is now standard English
when it introduces the subject of an infinitive
that is being used in place of a that-clause. But
it is not acceptable when the infinitive is not
being used in this way.

we do not say want that-clause, so we cannot say want for sb/sth to do.

And for in such sentences is something of a subjunctive.

Is that so?

CalifJim · Answer

norwolfIs that so?

I have not researched the topic myself, but I'm willing to take it as true until someone provides an obvious counterexample.

You say you are confused. Can you say more specifically which part of that quote is troubling you?

CJ

Mr Wordy · Answer

norwolfIn current English for is used to introduce, or
to mark, the subject of an infinitive, as in there
was no need for you to leave and I am glad for
you to have it. When the infinitive and all the
words that go with it are attached to a noun or
an adjective, as they are in these examples, this
use of for is unquestionably literary English.

This is probably tangential to your interests, but in BrE this is not true: "There was no need for you to leave" is not literary but is ordinary conversational English.

Norwolf · Answer

[/quote]This is probably tangential to your interests, but in BrE this is not true: "There was no need for you to leave" is not literary but is ordinary conversational English.

[/quote]

Well, Mr Wordy, you mean it is imaginary. It is terrible, cos I have seen the book criticized twice.

Mr Wordy, thank you again.

Norwolf · Answer

CalifJim
norwolfIs that so?
I have not researched the topic myself, but I'm willing to take it as true until someone provides an obvious counterexample.

You say you are confused. Can you say more specifically which part of that quote is troubling you?

CJ

Dear Jim, so pleased to see you and grateful for your constant help.

1#the doctor said that he should take a walk.

=2# the doctor said that he take a walk.(perhaps a little older English)

=3# the doctor said for him to take a walk.(according to Evans)

When I read those, I feel that the doctor was desirous to suggest something or giving an order, and that the objects sound like imperatives as if the doctor was forcing someone to approve his/her idea. So some grammarians call 1# and 2# Mandative Subjunctives.

There Bergen Evans gave the theory that we can use the form of 3# to say our strong desires or commands and so on. But, in fact, this kind of sentences is rare.

Then go problems:

Is 3# Standard English in AmE?

Do you natives feel in the mood for emphasizing for your ideas to be approved when speaking this way?

CalifJim · Answer

norwolf1#the doctor said that he should take a walk.

=2# the doctor said that he take a walk.(perhaps a little older English)

=3# the doctor said for him to take a walk.(according to Bergen Evans)

When I read those, I feel that the doctor was desirous to suggest something or giving an order, and that the objects sound like imperatives as if the doctor was forcing someone to approve his/her idea. So some grammarians call 1# and 2# Mandative Subjunctives.

Yes. Mandatives. Giving orders. That's all true. The sentences report what the doctor ordered him to do.

norwolfThere Bergen Evans gave the theory that we can use the form of 3# to say our strong desires or commands and so on.

I am not certain that this is how we should describe what Evans said. I believe he is saying that people do use that form without saying precisely that they can use it. He is trying to describe what people do -- not what people should do. He is putting himself in the position of a person who observes and reports what he observes -- not in the position of an authority who advises people on how they should use language. For all we know, Evans may be reporting on patterns which many people would regard as "wrong".

norwolfBut, in fact, this kind of sentences is rare.

True. These kinds of sentences are rare. Maybe Evans simply noticed that some people sometimes use this pattern. Maybe he believes that one day in the future this grammatical pattern will become standard.

norwolfIs 3# Standard English in AmE?

Do you natives feel in the mood for emphasizing for your ideas to be approved when speaking this way?

No. #3 is not standard in AmE. (I don't believe it is standard in BrE either.) I don't use this non-stardard pattern, so I can't tell you anything about what native speakers feel when they use it. My recommendation to you as a learner of English is to forget it. I recommend that you don't use this pattern.

Evans says in the United States for is now standard English when it introduces the subject of an infinitive that is being used in place of a that-clause.

I am not sure which structures he is including in this group and which structures he is excluding. He does not give enough examples, in my opinion, for us to make a determination about this. Because of this, I can't say for certain that I agree with his opinion about what is standard English in the U.S.

CJ

For

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions