Macmillan Holdings, LLC. Grammar Girl, Grammar Girl's, QDnow, and Quick and Dirty Tips are all trademarks of Macmillan Holdings, LLC. Sorting out the confusion. Omorose Panya grammar I agree with the New Fowler’s Modern English Usage; I think it is incorrect. I also agree with (Garner?) the idea that it makes the sentence sound incomplete. "For she was a happy child indeed." That really lingers in my mind. It makes me want to know why she was a happy child---moreso than merely saying, "She was a happy child indeed." That sounds like a complete thought. If the "For..." sentence is in a paragraph, I get the sense that the "why" will show up somewhere, but I feel like it should be done within the sentence itself. I think many persons will agree with me when I say that, if nothing else, using "For" as a frequent sentence starter will make a piece sound choppy. http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=20758#Comments http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=20758#Comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:36:28 GMT mmi grammar It's deliciously funny to watch GG squirm about this! It is patently clear that "for," when used as a conjunction that is a sort of synonym for "because," should NEVER be used at the beginning of a sentence. Yet, GG cannot bring herself to state this because she has been brainwashed into being such a diehard "liberal" in every area of life that she has nearly lost every shred of the ability to declare that something is a hard-and-fast rule! In fact, for happiness, human beings must give up unchecked liberalism in every area of life -- starting today with grammar! http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=18936#Comments http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=18936#Comments Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:26:17 GMT Linguist grammar "It would be awful for John to die." vs. "For John to die would be awful." Be wary of unscientific generalizations. There are cases where you can use the complementizer "for" at the beginning of a sentence (and it's not a preposition in these cases). http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16930#Comments http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16930#Comments Mon, 11 May 2009 22:45:29 GMT Linguist grammar "It would be awful for John to die." vs. "For John to die would be awful." Be wary of unscientific generalizations. There are cases where you can use the complementizer "for" at the beginning of a sentence (and it's not a preposition in these cases). http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16929#Comments http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16929#Comments Mon, 11 May 2009 22:44:45 GMT Stuart Simon grammar The song I was referring to is "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow." http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16914#Comments http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16914#Comments Mon, 11 May 2009 00:02:20 GMT leslie Robertson grammar When "for" works at the beginning of a sentence, as in "for auld lang syne," it's a preposition, not a conjunction, so no one's peaceful retirement need be threatened. http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16912#Comments http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16912#Comments Sun, 10 May 2009 19:43:19 GMT Stuart grammar Not only is the use of "for" as a conjunction very old, but so is its use at the beginning of a sentence. Well-known grammarians who rail against the use of "for" at the beginning of a sentence will have peaceful retirements ONLY if they turn a deaf ear to a certain song at their retirement parties. And I should not have to tell you what that song is. http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16907#Comments http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16907#Comments Sun, 10 May 2009 03:59:00 GMT Leslie Robertson grammar I think your discussion of this was needlessly confusing. For is a coordinating conjunction; because is a subordinating conjunction. It is entirely acceptable to move a subordinate clause (such as one beginning with because) to the beginning of a sentence, following it with a comma and the main clause: "Because I could not stop for death, it kindly stopped for me." It is not acceptable to begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction in that way: "For I studied very hard, I did well on the exam." That sounds very strange. Coordinating conjunctions belong between clauses and are always (unless the clauses are unusually short) preceded by a comma: "The students did very well on the test, for they had all studied hard." Beginning a sentence with any kind of conjunction but without another clause adjoining it always creates a sentence fragment; such fragments should be used sparingly, especially in formal writing, but are fine if they serve a rhetorical purpose: "And that's my position" or "Because I said so." Once one understands that for (in this sense) is a coordinating conjunction (unlike because), then its usage is completely logical and uncomplicated. http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16905#Comments http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16905#Comments Sat, 09 May 2009 19:46:58 GMT Martin Diers grammar Then, of course, there is the use of "for" as a preposition, where it is perfectly normal to put it at the beginning of a sentence: "For him, it came naturally." I tend to agree with Drew. "For" works great to mean "because" when used as a conjunction. On its own it just doesn't work. I have yet to see "for" used as "because" to start a sentence in any other place than when a compound sentence has been split in two. Reading the two sentences out loud, you would not know the sentence was not a compound sentence. I would argue that the sentence really is a compound sentence. It is just punctuated and capitalized wrongly. http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16904#Comments http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16904#Comments Sat, 09 May 2009 16:15:36 GMT Drew Kime grammar When "for" is a synonym for "because", it only seems to work coming after the phrase it modifies: I was tired after my journey, for I had been forced to bike 20 miles. vs. For I had been forced to bike 20 miles, I was tired after my journey. So it's not entirely similar to "because" in usage. I still wouldn't start a sentence like that, though. In one of its other meanings, though, it's perfectly fine at the beginning of a sentence. For instance, you could take a look at this sentence right here. For other examples, you could probably check ... well, just about any writing where people are offering examples. http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16903#Comments http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx?commentid=16903#Comments Sat, 09 May 2009 13:45:58 GMT Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:36:28 GMT http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/because-or-for.aspx feedback@quickanddirtytips.com (Managing Editor) feedback@quickanddirtytips.com (Webmaster) en-us