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..."
Using "for suppose".
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
LOL! Not on this one. A student on another forum posted a similar question about "for suppose" and I just wanted to see what posters here thought.Andrew Patterson wrote:No, sounds OK to me.
BTW, Metal, there's been a lot of stuff like this recently, is this for a specific research project? I bet you're doing research on corpora.
The student is barking up the wrong tree. In this example I take for to mean because, which follows on from the previous sentence i.e. the second sentence explains why general comment on the Iraq war would, in the writer's opinion, be misguided. Suppose introduces the next part of the sentence. There isn't a set phrase for suppose with its own special meaning.
?lolwhites wrote:The student is barking up the wrong tree. In this example I take for to mean because, which follows on from the previous sentence i.e. the second sentence explains why general comment on the Iraq war would, in the writer's opinion, be misguided. Suppose introduces the next part of the sentence. There isn't a set phrase for suppose with its own special meaning.
"...be similarly transformed into a real symmetric matrix. For suppose we have a Jordan block as in the theorem..."
"...set of causes, and with different results. For suppose that the disuse of meat causes a permanent distaste for"
http://view.byu.edu/
"This inference is valid. For suppose the premiss is true in some situation.
Then there is some object, x, in the domain of that situation such that
xS V xH. By the truth conditions for V, either xS or xH. In the first case,"
http://www.oup.co.uk/pdf/vsi/Logicsol.pdf
Another example of the same, but this time following a semi-colon:
"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.
"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.
In all Metal's examples, I see for as linking the previous sentence and suppose as introducing the following phrase as something hypothetical. It's another way of saying ...because let us imagine that.... For suppose is, in my view, no more a lexical item to be analyzed as one unit than, say, and here is a hypothetical example that supports/disproves my previous statement.
Just because two words often appear together doesn't mean they're a collocation.
Just because two words often appear together doesn't mean they're a collocation.
How about:lolwhites wrote:In all Metal's examples, I see for as linking the previous sentence and suppose as introducing the following phrase as something hypothetical. It's another way of saying ...because let us imagine that.... For suppose is, in my view, no more a lexical item to be analyzed as one unit than, say, and here is a hypothetical example that supports/disproves my previous statement.
Just because two words often appear together doesn't mean they're a collocation.
for imagine...
for think...
just think
think only
let's suppose
let's imagine
Do you see those as lexical units?
The third and final two examples you give seem to me to be sufficiently well used that we could consider them as lexical units, though the others don't convince me.
What about but suppose? It appears in your example from "Kidnapped", so arguably it has the same status as for suppose, though I don't hear anyone arguing in favour of that one. I still think the student in question is barking up the wrong tree.
What about but suppose? It appears in your example from "Kidnapped", so arguably it has the same status as for suppose, though I don't hear anyone arguing in favour of that one. I still think the student in question is barking up the wrong tree.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
I would even suggest a colon.You seem to have got a little diverted by lexical units. The main question I wanted to ask was about the words following "for suppose". One commentator on another form said that that the idea of following "for suppose" with something that resembled giving and example of what went before was not correct usage.lolwhites wrote:The third and final two examples you give seem to me to be sufficiently well used that we could consider them as lexical units, though the others don't convince me.
What about but suppose? It appears in your example from "Kidnapped", so arguably it has the same status as for suppose, though I don't hear anyone arguing in favour of that one. I still think the student in question is barking up the wrong tree.
What do you think of that?
lolwhites wrote:The third and final two examples you give seem to me to be sufficiently well used that we could consider them as lexical units, though the others don't convince me.
quote]
And BTW, what stands as a lexical unit can be different for each of us. It is not an exact science, but is about perception.