Looks calm for

Question

Are these sentences correct:1) He looks very calm for having just witnessed a murder.2) He is very calm for having just witnessed a murder.3) He looks too calm for having just witnessed a murder.4) He is too calm for having just witnessed a murder.(He looks/is very/too calm for someone who has just witnessed a murder.)I think in the original sentences, 'for' could be interpreted to mean 'because'. Gratefully,Navi.HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

navitasanAre these sentences correct

Yes. They are all correct.

navitasanI think in the original sentences, 'for' could be interpreted to mean 'because'.

I don't see how that can be. Looking very calm doesn't seem likely to be the effect of witnessing a murder.
And as for the grammar, "because having just witnessed" certainly won't work.

navitasanHAPPY HOLIDAYS!

You, too!

CJ

Navitasan · Answer

Thank you very much, Jim,

Yes, semantically that won't work. But what do you think of:

5) He is in good shape for staying away from bad foods.
6) He is in good shape because of staying away from bad foods.

Don't you think these work? (I am not sure about either of them myself, but tend to think that they are correct.)

Gratefully,
Navi.

CalifJim · Answer

navitasan5) He is in good shape for staying away from bad foods.

This one doesn't work for me. "for" in that kind of pattern means "despite", not "because of", so it should be ... in bad shape ....
(But let me know if you find a counterexample in print.

)

The other one is good.

CJ

Navitasan · Answer

Thank you very much, Jim,

'For' is one of the tricky words in English.

People do say
He was jumping for joy. (because of joy)
(I think that one could be ambiguous actually. Maybe he wanted to become joyful by jumping. (He was jumping for pleasure.) but I am pushing it a bit!)

But that sentence is not really like mine.

I found this definition and these sentences in the dictionary:

as a http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/result_1 of something

He was http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/sick_1 for http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/lack_1 of http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/food.

We’re all much http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/better_1 http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/people_1 for http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/have http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/known_1 Carl.

Source:
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/for

But, this usage is rare, and I am not sure that those sentences and mine have the exact same structure.

I did manage to scrape up a few examples here:
https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22was+sad+for+having%22&num=10

and here:

https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22was+happy+for+having%22&num=10

But how many of them are by native speakers? And how many are there?

I personally would not use the sentences I used in my examples, to tell you the truth. I had ventured out to the twilight zone of the language and were testing things.

Gratefully and respectfully,
Navi.

CalifJim · Answer

You found some good examples. I think we just have to say that the same grammatical pattern can say opposite things depending on the exact meaning content of the clauses and on the context.

CJ

Looks calm for

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions