Using "for suppose".

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:32 am

So, are you suggesting that conjunctions should not begin a sentence?

Not in the least. It seemed to me that the second clause was sufficiently linked to the first one that a full stop was too great a barrier. A matter of style, not prescriptivism.

Incidentally if 'and' or 'but' begin the sentence, they are surely adverbs, not conjunctions.

And the fact that there is a stop before the 'for', suggests it is not the standard use that lolwhites suggests it is.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:14 am

Stephen Jones wrote:
So, are you suggesting that conjunctions should not begin a sentence?
Not in the least. It seemed to me that the second clause was sufficiently linked to the first one that a full stop was too great a barrier. A matter of style, not prescriptivism.

OK. Good.

Incidentally if 'and' or 'but' begin the sentence, they are surely adverbs, not conjunctions.

I'd call discourse markers.

And the fact that there is a stop before the 'for', suggests it is not the standard use that lolwhites suggests it is.

In whose standard?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:58 am

In whose standard?

Hers presumably

If 'for suppose' is simply 'for' followed by 'suppose' then you would expect it to act as a conjunction part of the time. 'because suppose' often comds in the middle of the sentence.

Yet all 7 BNC examples are preceded by a stop.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:30 pm

Metal, you may be right about me getting diverted by lexical units. My point is really much simple:

For is performing one function, i.e. it provides the link with the previous sentence in the same way as because. Suppose performs an entirely different function, which is introducing a hypothetical situation in the same way as let us imagine that.... It is, as Stephen so succinctly put it, for followed by suppose. It's that simple.

I'm not sure what your poster is getting at with his/her "rule". Can you give an example?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:03 pm

lolwhites wrote:Metal, you may be right about me getting diverted by lexical units. My point is really much simple:

For is performing one function, i.e. it provides the link with the previous sentence in the same way as because. Suppose performs an entirely different function, which is introducing a hypothetical situation in the same way as let us imagine that.... It is, as Stephen so succinctly put it, for followed by suppose. It's that simple.
?

So you wouldn't see these as units when nonidiomatic:

get off
go down

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:38 pm

Depends. In get off the bus/train/plane/camel... the off could well be argued to go as much with the bus as the verb get, whereas in get off at Waterloo you could argue that it goes more with get than at Waterloo. Then again, you could argue in my second example that the train/bus/camel is implied or put its absence down to ellipsis.

Likewise with go down. When it's mean literally the down could well be argued to go with the hill or whatever. After all, you could imagine a conversation like:

A:Where did the coppers go?
B:Down the hill

Anyway, that's my view of for suppose. What's yours?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:53 pm

lolwhites wrote:
Anyway, that's my view of for suppose. What's yours?

That those who will see ity as a unit will do so.

How'd y' like this one?

For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.

Albert Camus

Would that be used in your variant of English?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:55 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:

And the fact that there is a stop before the 'for', suggests it is not the standard use that lolwhites suggests it is.

For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.

Albert Camus

Would that be used in your variant of English?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:56 pm

How'd y' like this one?

For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.

Albert Camus

Would that be used in your variant of English?

If Camus is starting an essay with the phrase, I don't think it works and certainly couldn't be considered everyday usage. Presumably, like your examples with for suppose, the for here relates to whatever Camus has just said, and introduces a justifying argument for whatever statement he has just made. Then again, it could alway be a bad translation from the French

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:27 pm

lolwhites wrote: Then again, it could alway be a bad translation from the French

Are you assuming that Camus didn't speak English well?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:16 pm

No, but I am assuming he didn't just say "For if there is a sin against life..." without saying something else beforehand.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:32 pm

lolwhites wrote:No, but I am assuming he didn't just say "For if there is a sin against life..." without saying something else beforehand.

Guess you'll have to read The Myth of Sisyphus : And Other Essays to find out.

coffeedecafe · Post by **coffeedecafe** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:24 am

hi, i guess 'for suppose' could be thought of as 'just imagine', or 'for example'.
i even thought i would apply plain english to your quote Camas:

"For suppose there is a sin against life, the recipe would be one part despairing of this life, to at least two parts rushing on to another life, leaving this life half-baked, and never experiencing the aroma, of a well turned loaf[I mean life!]."

This discussion includes many ideas on for suppose. I suppose a full quote is unneccessary for the grammar question, but philosophically I am left not knowing the point that the student was seeking to make. But that is okay.

anyway, very complete suppose-itory, and my regards to Miss Sissyphus.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:46 am

<hi, i guess 'for suppose' could be thought of as 'just imagine', or 'for example'. i even thought i would apply plain english to your quote Camas: >

You might think of applying plain English to your own posts first.

coffeedecafe · Post by **coffeedecafe** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:40 pm

mmm. my post was too long to be summarized plainly.
and most of the posters on the teachers side seem to be very developed grammar learners.
part of the adventure of a new language is when you reach the point of understanding two out of three words. is this not true?
then the learning is changing from miracle needed, to challenge, to the adventure of figuring out the missing parts.
for suppose it was really so simple.

[it is true. i have never read sissyphus.]