0

I'm reading my first ever novel in English (French is my mother tongue): Tales of Horror by H.P Lovecraft.

Surprisingly, reading this book is fine for me, however there's a sentence construction I don't fully understand. This is when Lovecraft is starting a sentence with For. He's using this style so often that I arrived at a point I really want to understand this way of writing.

Random examples:

From The Shunned House:

For on my ears rang the reverberations of that shocking scream, while my nostrils revolted at the stench which filled the place.

From Herbert West - Reanimator:

For that visitor was neither Italien nor policeman.

Could you please explain to me the purpose of adding For at the beginning of sentences like in these examples?

Does this way of constructing a sentence has a particular name?

I'm a bit confused by this style so I want to know more about it.

Thanks for your answers

Hellion
  • 59,365
Jérôme MEVEL
  • 101
  • 2
    It used to be considered atrocious to start a sentence with and, but and other coordinators. But it is no longer as unacceptable as it once was. For many realised that great writers were committing this 'sin'. So the 'rule' has been downgraded to a recommendation: Don't overdo it. // The coordinator is here used as a sentence-connector, meaning 'because'. Obviously, there needs to be a statement in the preceding sentence. For it wouldn't make sense otherwise. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 25 '21 at 19:06
  • maybe, for the sake of curiosity, also look at the word "wherefore" which plays a very similar role (i.e. "because"/"why"/"how come") – Yorik Mar 25 '21 at 19:46
  • @EdwinAshworth - I would not call HP Lovecraft a 'great', or even a 'good' writer. – Michael Harvey Mar 25 '21 at 19:57
  • Your comments made me even more confused at first because Lovecraft often uses For at the beginning of a new paragraph. But still, it seems it's indeed about the preceding sentence even though it's a new paragraph. From what I quickly saw in his book, when For is used at the beginning of a sentence it could be replaced by But. And when it's used after a comma, it could be replaced by because. – Jérôme MEVEL Mar 25 '21 at 20:14
  • 1
    Lovecraft was writing 100 years ago. And even then he tried to write in an "archaic" manner, to lend an atmosphere to the stories. (I do not know if starting sentences with "for" was part of his way to make the writing sound archaic.) I think this book will not be a good choice if you want to improve your understanding of contemporary English. – GEdgar Mar 25 '21 at 22:01
  • For is an "official" member of our coordinating conjunctions club — it's the F in FANBOYS. No one knows why it was let into this club, as it means because, and because is a subordinating conjunction. And we don't start a sentence with subordinating conjunctions. For that would be wrong. – Tinfoil Hat Mar 26 '21 at 04:54
  • @TinfoilHat I think it's better to say that the "for" meaning "because" is a preposition, while the "for" that introduces to-infinitival clauses with a subject is a subordinator, as in "We can't afford [for everyone to travel business class]". – BillJ Mar 26 '21 at 07:59

1 Answers1

0

Some readers may take starting a sentence with a coordinating conjunction as a sign of informality or stylistic infelicity. But it is fine grammatically, particularly when coordinating with the previous sentence. For the MLA Style Center suggests it is a stylistic preference rather than a point of grammar, giving these examples:

He started a sentence with a coordinating conjunction. And that was the end of him.

He started a sentence with a coordinating conjunction. But his wife didn’t leave him.

He started a sentence with a coordinating conjunction. Or perhaps he only dreamed that he did, because the kale was spoiled.

The Chicago Manual of Style (5.203: Beginning a sentence with a conjunction) and other guides usually agree. Any coordinating conjunction - for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so - can start a sentence. It was good enough for Shakespeare:

For with the dark, poor thief, I'll steal away. (All's Well that Ends Well, III.2)

TaliesinMerlin
  • 40,528
  • "For" is not here a conjunction, but a preposition typically meaning "because". The conjunction "for" is used solely as a marker of to-infinitival clauses that contain a subject as in, "[For John to lose his temper like that] is highly unusual". Btw this "for" is a subordinator (subordinating conjunction) , not a coordinator (coordinating conjunction). – BillJ Mar 26 '21 at 07:40