Grammar Girl informed me today that it's alright (edit: upon closer inspection, and to her credit, she said it might be ok, but she is also skeptical) to begin a sentence with the word "for," if by "for" I mean "because." Which means I could say something like this:
I am exhausted. For I have taken my dog on a very long walk.
Does that seem wrong to anyone but me? I mean, really? I could get behind I am exhausted, for I have taken my dog on a very long walk. I just don't think I can take it as two separate sentences. Icky icky yuck.
The whole thing is just making me itchy.
love.
Have a Relaxing Weekend.
1 hour ago
7 comments:
i'm totally with you on this one.
using two separate sentences instead of a comma...
that's absolutely mad.
it looks silly and it reads silly.
thank you, shannon. thank you.
I actually went and read the post, and I would say that 1) it was composed by a guest writer, and 2) her main point seemed to be, "I'm confused about this usage." As far as I can tell, using "for" to mean "because" is the only time it's *not* ok to put it at the start of a sentence.
You're right, Aaron... the long version was much, much more informative than the summary I recieved and blogged about. However, it would appear that some people somewhere are still ok with the "for" as "because" sentence starter, even if GG is on the fence... and for that reason, I'm still irked. For it bothers me quite a bit. For it's just plain wrong.
For the love, write a compound sentence!
For is a coordinating conjunction. For, and, nor, but, or, yet, so (FANBOYS). These words may start sentences only if the sentence beginning is a fragment that is followed a complete sentence.
For example, re-read this sentence.
But that's just me. (damn!)
oh dan... it's truly not surprising that I wanted to be your friend.
Now stop writing comments that read like they were written by my father. It's creepy. For serious. :)
Post a Comment