Hello, everybody!

Help me please:

For the same uprush of fancy which had shown him with all the force of
mathematical demonstration that life had no meaning, brought with it
another idea; and that was why Cronshaw, he imagined, had given him the
Persian rug.

I can't for my life understand the syntax of this sentence:
What part of speech is "For"?
a.)if it's a conjunction, where is the primary clause?
b.)if it's a preposition, "the same uprush of fancy" should be the object, - am I right? where is the subject then?
If "for" weren't in the sentence it would be OK, but that's not the case, so it's quite a puzzle for me.

In a translation of a book, "fancy" is the subject of the sentence, but, if so, what "for" serves for?

Thank you in advance!

"For" signals that what follows is an explanation or elaboration of what has been said previously. The subject is "the same uprush of fancy". Picking out some earlier words, we could create a sentence like this:

"He had not been so happy for months, for the same uprush of fancy ... etc."

So, I think "for" must be a conjunction.
I'm still very confused =(

Isn't the thing you have mentioned the causative function of the conjunction "for"?
Are there any articles which treat more elaborately what you have explained?

I'm sorry for being so particular, but, since English is not my mother tongue, the discrimination of phenomena is apparently the best way to learn grammar for me.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
meowthI'm still very confused
Do you understand "He had not been so happy for months, for the same uprush of fancy ... etc."?
For can be a coordinating conjunction. It has a similar meaning to "since, because" but has a more poetic and formal sound to it.

You can grammatically parse the sentence as if "but" were used in place of "for"

But the same uprush of fancy ... brought with it another idea;...

All the best!
It means because or for this reason, and it relates back to what was said previously.


Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
meowtha.)if it's a conjunction, where is the primary clause?
Good question. The author has taken the liberty of not having a main clause at all for stylistic reasons. For is a subordinate conjunction and means because.

Thank you. Now I seem to see. The case was quite a new one to me, since I've grown accustomed to see "for" either with object or in complex sentence and such an omission was as unexpected as it could be to me.