+0
Hello, teachers.

I'd like to ask you for help. Please.

I read some sentences which have for before an infinitive,such as:

1#We like for the kids to see themselves onstage

2#I want for people to think highly of me.

My question is what the writer did this for. To emphasize?

Bergen Evans said :we do not say Z want that you should come and therefore
Z want for you to come is also unacceptable.(A Dictionary Of Contemporary American Usage)

As he said, 2# was unacceptable. However, we can find so many examples in COCA.

What's happening? Has the use of want changed?

I would thank you so much.
1 2
Comments  
In standard English, the word "for" is not needed, and I would normally consider this usage incorrect in written English (except when transcribing dialogue). However, in spoken English it's arguably more a feature of a person's dialect than a clear error. Having said that, I wouldn't recommend that you copy the usage. The word "for" does not, for me, add any emphasis or change the meaning at all.

I am a British English speaker. It's possible that there are usage differences between AmE and BrE.
Mr WordyIn standard English, the word "for" is not needed, and I would normally consider this usage incorrect in written English (except when transcribing dialogue). However, in spoken English it's arguably more a feature of a person's dialect than a clear error. Having said that, I wouldn't recommend that you copy the usage. The word "for" does not, for me, add any emphasis or change the meaning at all.

I am a British English speaker. It's possible that there are usage differences between AmE and BrE.

Thanks a lot, Mr Wordy.

Oh, dear American English speakers, your views, please.

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
I am an American, and I am in complete agreement with Mr Wordy's explanations and advice. I do not sense any difference whatsoever between AmE and BrE usage where these kinds of constructions are concerned.

CJ
Note that "want for" is an idiom meaning "to lack" or "to need" something, e.g. "If you want for courage, you need but find some."
Hey, my friends. I am still confused.

According to Bergen Evans:

In current English for is used to introduce, or
to mark, the subject of an infinitive, as in there
was no need for you to leave and I am glad for
you to have it. When the infinitive and all the
words that go with it are attached to a noun or
an adjective, as they are in these examples, this
use of for is unquestionably literary English.
But sometimes they are the object of a verb, as
in the doctor said for him to take a walk. Twenty
or thirty years ago sentences of this kind were
not considered standard and a that-clause, such
as the doctor said that he should take a walk,
was the only acceptable construction. But the
use of the infinitive has increased enormously
during the last thirty or forty years. It seems
to be replacing the that-clauses which require a
subjunctive or subjunctive equivalent verb. In
the United States for is now standard English
when it introduces the subject of an infinitive
that is being used in place of a that-clause. But
it is not acceptable when the infinitive is not
being used in this way.


we do not say want that-clause, so we cannot say want for sb/sth to do.

And for in such sentences is something of a subjunctive.

Is that so?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
norwolfIs that so?
I have not researched the topic myself, but I'm willing to take it as true until someone provides an obvious counterexample.

You say you are confused. Can you say more specifically which part of that quote is troubling you?

CJ
norwolfIn current English for is used to introduce, or
to mark, the subject of an infinitive, as in there
was no need for you to leave and I am glad for
you to have it. When the infinitive and all the
words that go with it are attached to a noun or
an adjective, as they are in these examples, this
use of for is unquestionably literary English.
This is probably tangential to your interests, but in BrE this is not true: "There was no need for you to leave" is not literary but is ordinary conversational English.
[/quote]This is probably tangential to your interests, but in BrE this is not true: "There was no need for you to leave" is not literary but is ordinary conversational English.

[/quote]

Well, Mr Wordy, you mean it is imaginary. It is terrible, cos I have seen the book criticized twice.

Mr Wordy, thank you again.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more