14

He went to bed, for he was tired. (For = coordinating conjunction)

He went to bed, because he was tired. (Because = subordinating conjunction)

Is this correct? If so, I'm confused.

In all the examples and explanations I've found online it says 'for' is a preposition unless used in that particular way above, in which case it becomes a coordinating conjunction (FANBOYS). But to me it seems like 'for' has the exact same function and meaning as 'because' in the above example. Both could be replaced with 'due to the fact that...'

Why is 'because' subordinating but 'for' coordinating?

FANBOYS: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so

Grammar

Anton
  • 28,634
  • 3
  • 42
  • 81
Sarah
  • 141
  • 2
    Very good question, but I find the whole issue of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions arbitrary and confusing anyway. This is now taught to children at a far too elementary stage, when I was a child and teenager no one ever mentioned it. – BoldBen Apr 04 '21 at 05:36
  • I don’t think the comma really belongs in the sentence that uses “because,” which may help a bit to clarify the difference. – max norton Apr 04 '21 at 06:22
  • 2
    "For" is either a preposition meaning "because", or a subordinator where it introduces infinitival clauses that have a subject. In your example, it's clearly a preposition. – BillJ Apr 04 '21 at 06:23
  • 2
    @BillJ Is your position that for does not belong in FANBOYS? – max norton Apr 04 '21 at 06:32
  • 3
    Grammarians don't use the acronym FANBOYS. Frankly, it's misleading. The coordinators consist of "and", "or", "but" and "nor". The "for" that introduces clauses is a subordinator, not a coordinator. As I said, it is a marker for infinitival clauses that contain a subject, as in "[For John to lose his temper like that] is highly unusual." – BillJ Apr 04 '21 at 06:46
  • I’m curious why “yet” would not be considered a coordinator if “but” is. – max norton Apr 04 '21 at 06:59
  • 1
    @maxnorton Despite having certain similarities to coordinators, on balance "yet" (meaning "nevertheless") is best analysed as an adverb functioning as a concessive adjunct. Consider, for example, "You can look as fit as a fiddle and yet feel quite listless". Here it is "and" that marks the coordination relation, and since a clause can only contain one coordinator, it follows that "yet" can only be a modifier within the second coordinate. – BillJ Apr 04 '21 at 07:50
  • @BillJ: Maybe in your personal grammar (and maybe also in your favorite grammar book), for, yet, and so are not coordinating conjuctions. But not all grammar books adhere to your personal grammar, and they actually have reasons for their classification. – Peter Shor Apr 04 '21 at 11:54
  • 1
    @PeterShor Fine, now tell the OP exactly why they are conjunctions, providing supporting evidence for that analysis. – BillJ Apr 04 '21 at 12:17
  • 1
    You might also try reading some modern grammars, where solid reasons for such analyses are given. – BillJ Apr 04 '21 at 12:24
  • 1
    You can start by reading this article by Geoff Pullum link – BillJ Apr 04 '21 at 12:29
  • Incidentally, my last two comments were directed at Peter Shor. @Sarah: Your observations are well-founded. Briefly, modern grammar classifies both this "for" and "because" as prepositions. See here:link and here: link. – BillJ Apr 04 '21 at 17:48
  • Related. – tchrist Nov 24 '22 at 20:34

2 Answers2

13

It's not surprising you're confused. There really isn't much difference in meaning between for and because here, but there's a difference in grammar, which is why for is traditionally classified as a coordinating conjunction and because as a subordinating conjunction.

The difference between subordinating conjunctions and coordinating conjunctions is the allowable word orders. Coordinating conjunctions have to come between the two phrases they are connecting, while there is no such requirement for subordinating conjunctions.

For example, you can say all of

He went to bed because he was tired,
He went to bed since he was tired,
He went to bed, for he was tired.

But if you try reversing the order of the clauses, only two of these conjunctions work. You can say:

Because he was tired, he went to bed,
Since he was tired, he went to bed,

but not

*For he was tired, he went to bed.

And that is why for is called a coordinating conjunction, while because and since are called subordinating conjunctions.

Peter Shor
  • 88,407
0

In response to Peter Shor's comment: "And that is why for is a coordinating conjunction, while because and since are subordinating conjunctions".

With items like "since" / "before" / "after", they uncontroversially occur as prepositions when they have an NP as complement, and there's no basis for assigning them to different categories according as they take an NP or a clause -- or no complement at all. Trad grammar has:

since the meeting:............. [preposition + noun]

since we arrived:............... [subordinating conjunction + sub clause]

(I hadn't seen her) since:.. [adverb, no complement]

This is just a matter of varying complementation, which is commonplace. Compare verbs:

I know her father ............. [verb + NP]

I know that he's ill............ [verb + clause]

I know.............................. [verb without complement]

Or noun:

a belief in God ..................... [noun + PP]

the belief that God exists......[noun + clause]

her beliefs.............................[noun without complement]

We need therefore to distinguish "since" from the genuine subordinators "that/whether", and then once we've done that "since" clearly belongs with other prepositions.

BillJ
  • 12,832
  • "Trad gram"? Sounds like a 70s glam rock band. What does PP stand for: Prepositional Phrase? – Mari-Lou A Apr 05 '21 at 07:08
  • This is not an answer. If this were an answer, you would say what part of speech for really was. This is in fact a long comment on my answer saying that it's wrong. Does Geoff Pullum classify for (meaning because) anywhere—is it an unusual conjunction or an unusual preposition? because it's certainly unusual either way. – Peter Shor Apr 06 '21 at 11:52
  • 1
    I had already said what part of speech "for" belongs to in my first comment to the OP. This answer is indeed intended to be a detailed explanation of why your claim that "since" is a subordinating conjunction is wrong. The same applies to some other items such as "before". – BillJ Apr 06 '21 at 12:22
  • How does because "uncontroversially occur as a preposition"? The usual preposition is almost always because of. Because occurs in very narrow, often jocular, contexts ("because sicence", "because reasons") – Vun-Hugh Vaw Apr 21 '23 at 14:23