'for' as a conjunction to mean 'because', archaic?
 

I have a university English Composition teacher who comes to me for conversation practice once a week. Every week she writes a one page essay on something, but it's more like a blog entry. Her English is very good and so sometimes her English is correct but awkward.

"I'm not particular about seats on the airplane, for I usually sleep while flying."

That's an example sentence from her essay. How do you feel about the "for" here. It seems overly formal to me. I want to change it to "because", but should I?

Re: 'for' as a conjunction to mean 'because', archaic?
 

I wouldn't change it ,but I'd ask her what style she wanted to achieve and then show her some examples of the use of for taken from a concordancer. Here's a few I prepared earlier ... :)

1. You would not know it to look at him, for he has survived virtually unscathed in a testing
2. ...however, the story moved into a new phase, for he was then committed to the Crown Court and
3. ...Gooch in a highly embarrassing position, for he often seeks out Boycott for technical advice,
4. He was swearing. I feared for my safety for he was trying to tear my office apart.
5. He will print them, out of doubt; for he cares not what he puts into the press.


I'd show her how there are clues even in these short texts that the style is formal or even slightly archaic - the negation in (5); the choice of vocabulary - seeks out rather than looks for, or feared for my safety rather than was scared; the use of full forms rather than contractions. The choice of for rather than because adds to this sense of formality

And if she had said that she wanted a more neutral, or informal, style, then I'd suggest using because instead. If she said she wanted a formal style - then you might discuss whether that's approriate to the type of text she was writing.

Hope that helps...

Sue

Re: 'for' as a conjunction to mean 'because', archaic?
 

Sue - thanks! That certainly helps.

At the time I told her that I felt it didn't really match the style for I felt it a bit formal :)

I'll relay the rest next week.

Thanks again for taking the time to bounce this around.

- Mark

Re: 'for' as a conjunction to mean 'because', archaic?
 

thanks for posting this question, mark. I didn't even know that "for" can be used in this way...