0
Anonymous Posted 11 years ago
Grammar

For

Managers didn't want to explain for what purpose he was employed there.

(i) Is "for" a conjunction in the above sentence?

(ii) Or is "for" a preposition and if so, is the indirect question what purpose he was employed there an object of the preposition in the above sentence?
  

Top answer

Anonymous i) Is "for" a conjunction in the above sentence? No; it is a preposition. Anonymous if so, is the indirect question what purpose he was employed there an object of the preposition in the above sentence?

— Mister Micawber

  • Anonymous i) Is "for" a conjunction in the above sentence?
  • No; it is a preposition.
  • Anonymous if so, is the indirect question what purpose he was employed there an object of the preposition in the above sentence?
  • Right.
  • And the whole thing is a verb complement.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

12 Answers
0
Anonymousi) Is "for" a conjunction in the above sentence?
No; it is a preposition.
Anonymous if so, is the indirect question what purpose he was employed there an object of the preposition in the above sentence?
Right. And the whole thing is a verb complement.
0
0
Anonymousif so, is the indirect question what purpose he was employed there an object of the preposition in the above sentence?
No. For what purpose is a preposition phrase within the indirect question for what purpose he was employed there.
0
0
Aspara GusNo. For what purpose is a preposition phrase within the indirect question for what purpose he was employed there.
Thanks for the reply.

That's a very interesting interpretation. So, if I've understood you correctly, the clause "he was employed there" is an object of the PP "for what purpose" and the whole wording (the indirect question) f
0
0
Anonymous So, if I've understood you correctly, the clause "he was employed there" is an object of the PP "for what purpose"
No, I didn’t say that. And where did you get the bizarre idea that preposition phrases take objects?

The for-phrase is an adjunct in the subordinate clause – cf. He was employed there for several purposes
0
0
Aspara Guswhere did you get the bizarre idea that preposition phrases take objects
Yeah, it's bizarre, a sort of thinking ad hoc and aloud.
0
0
AnonymousHow can did, want, and explain be construed as three clauses? It's a bit mind-boggling for me, I have to admit.
They aren’t themselves clauses. They’re (ultimately) heads of clauses:

Managers didn’t want to explain for what purpose he was employed there.
want to explain for what purpose he was employed there
0
0
Aspara GusDidn’t and want are (in my grammar) catenative verbs taking non-finite complements.
Hmm. Even 'didn't'. I didn't think that in your grammar the (traditional) auxiliaries would be classified as 'catenative'.

I learn something new (to grumble about) every day!
0
0
CalifJimI learn something new (to grumble about) every day!
The urge to grumble is one of the few pieces of evidence that I have that I am still alive.
0
0
Aspara Gus AnonymousHow can did, want, and explain be construed as three clauses? It's a bit mind-boggling for me, I have to admit.They aren’t themselves clauses. They’re (ultimately) heads of clauses:Managers didn’t want to explain for what purpose he was employed there.want to explain for what purpose he was employed thereto explain for what purpose he was employed ther
0
0
fivejedjonevidence that ... I am still alive
Not the constant pain? Consider yourself lucky!
0

Related Questions