Using "for suppose".

Clive wrote:

Hi, Do you see any problem with the use of "for suppose" below? "Any general comment made about the war in Iraq would be misguided. For suppose a person said that it wasn't about freedom at all, but about oil. Would we then have to..." The 'for suppose ....' is not correct. You need to omit 'for', which you are trying to use here in the sense of 'because'. 'Suppose' does not give a reason here, it introduces a suggestion that the reader should consider a hypothetical situation. Best wishes, Clive

But isn't "for being used as a conjunction there?

And would you say that all these are incorrect in usage?

1. "This put a second reflection in my mind: that if I were to separate from Alan and his tell-tale clothes I should be safe against arrest, and might go openly about my business. Nor was this all; for suppose I was arrested when I was alone, there was little against me; but suppose I was taken in company with the reputed murderer, my case would begin to be grave. For generosity's sake I dare not speak my mind upon this head; but I thought of it none the less."

From Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
------------

2. For suppose I were to say of two lamps, "The flame of this one was as hot as the flame of the other," this would not be false, although, perchance, one of them was earlier extinguished than the other.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102102.htm

3. There, "for" works as a conjunction/discourse marker pointing back (anaphoric) to what has been said. Joined with "suppose" it also points forward, to what will be said. The addition of were to + verb helps signal that an example, often comparative, should be to be taken into consideration.
---------

And see how these differ regarding coordination with what went before in the discourse.

"Hey, dude, suppose I were to ask her to marry me, would you come to the wedding?" (Not clearly anaphoric - unless stress is put on "were".)

*"Hey, dude, for suppose I were to ask her to marry me, would you come to the wedding?" (Not correct.)

"For suppose I were to ask her to marry me, would you come to the wedding?" (Clearly anaphoric.)

Hi guys,

For suppose a person said that it wasn't about freedom at all, but about oil.

With regard to the query But isn't "for being used as a conjunction there?, my response would be to ask which two clauses it joins. None, as far as I can see, which is what bothers me about the original sentence. If you want to take a simpler example, it's like saying 'For it was cold.' Or, if you like, saying 'For suppose it was cold'. Both of these simple examples seem, to me, to be incorrect English, simply fragments.

On the other hand, in the examples from 'Kidnapped' etc., 'for' does join two clauses in the same sentence. eg ....for suppose I was arrested ... there was little against me

Best wishes, Clive

Hi,

"Any general comment made about the war in Iraq would be misguided, for suppose a person said that it wasn't about freedom at all, but about oil. Would we then have to..."

Well, that seems less open and shut to me. Let's simplify it to

Any comment about the war would be misguided, for suppose a person said it was about oil. Would we then have to..."

In this case, I think, my primary concern would be about meaning. The first clause and then 'for...' seems to promise a reason will follow, but 'supposing' does not seem to be a way to supply a reason.

Surely it's far better just to write it as  Any comment about the war would be misguided. Suppose a person said it was about oil. Would we then have to..."  Although even this way, we are still waiting for the shoe to drop, for the reason to be revealed as to why any comment would be misguided.

Clive

Clive wrote:

Hi guys, For suppose a person said that it wasn't about freedom at all, but about oil.  ... Both of these simple examples seem, to me, to be incorrect English, simply fragments. Best wishes, Clive

Would you then say that these uses are incorrect?

That the sulphurous fumes spewed forth by primordial volcanos were yellow seems somehow more objective than that they stank, but so long as what we mean by "yellow" is what we mean by "yellow," the claims are parallel. For suppose some primordial earthquake cast up a cliff face exposing the stripes of hundreds of chemically different layers to the atmosphere. Were those stripes visible?

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/lovely&s.htm

In order to be knowledge (or to be in a position to know), the confidence one has (or would have) that one is cold must be reliably based in the following sense:

(R) If in αi one is in a position to know that p, then in every case sufficiently similar to αi one does not falsely believe that p.3

For suppose that one’s confidence is not reliably based. Then, in some very similar case one is not cold but believes falsely that one is.

http://www.niu.edu/phil/~reed/Shelter%20for%20the%20Cognitively%20Homeless.pdf

This, of course, only shows that one way of taking the two kinds of purposes under a single genus fails.  It may be that there is some other way that succeeds.  But if there is, then one of the two claims made becomes ungrounded.  For suppose there is a single genus of “purpose” that includes both kinds of purposes.  To generate the conflict, either the Simonian must say