Talk:for

gar
Hallo, I deleted the translation of ancient greek "gar", because it means "so", "then", not "because of".

I think also many translations of for as a conjunction are wrong, as they are in facts translations of the "for" as a preposition, not as a conjunction. "For" as a conjunction can be translated only by words with the same meaning of "because". This is not the case of many of the translations, that are not "because" but just "for" as a preposition, like, "for you", or "for example".

Pravoslav

Latin
Created (and/or added glosses to) conjugated or inflected, verb and participle forms of Latin verb: for. 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

by the standards of
Neat! I was looking for a def that would account for that use just a few days ago. How's that for a co-incidence? Incidentally, do we account for that use of "for"? - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't, but MWOnline has some possibilities:
 * 2a: as being or constituting
 * 4: used as a function word to indicate suitability or fitness 
 * DCDuring TALK 19:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"I'm two for three"
What does a phrase like that mean? I couldn't find it here. I realize this might not be the correct article to begin with. Palosirkka (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it (or anything like it). Some context might be useful. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Added (again, started watching US sports about 20 years ago). It means out of, especially in US sports such as baseball and basketball. In general, can refer to any attempt to success ratio. So "when it comes to winning on the horses, I'm two for three this year". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks. I had the vague idea it was related to sports but that was about it. Palosirkka (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing"
What kind of for is this? The same kind as "my kingdom for a horse", but without stating what will be done/given for the tongues? Equinox ◑ 16:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, that's covered by def 14. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"I am for you"
Is "for" as used in Romeo & Juliet, Act I Scene I:

GREGORY Do you quarrel, sir? ABRAHAM Quarrel sir! no, sir. SAMPSON If you do, sir, I am for you: I serve as good a man as you.

meaning along the lines of "I will challenge you" a distinct definition? Or does it just mean "for" in the sense of preposition defintion 2? 130.159.62.154 14:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's sense 2. "If you do, sir, I am for you" = "If you want to quarrel, I'm the guy for you." —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November–December 2013
Rfv-sense: Esperanto particle of distance (antonym of ĉi). I've never heard this before, and I can't find it being used this way on Tekstaro. Mr. Granger (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Benson's translates yonder in the CEED as tie for:
 * But also note he converts it to an adjective in tiu fora. So Benson appears seems to consider for an adverb in this usage, not a particle. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * made this addition to the entry, so I'm asking Rod to join our discussion. I notice he also added usage notes declaring for as a particle to, , , , &c. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mi forstrekis ĝin. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mi forstrekis ĝin. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

RFC discussion: September 2013–September 2017
Sense defined as a verb. There is something to it, but the definition can't be right. Requires concentration and perhaps review of entire entry, ideally comparing with other dictionaries efforts to span the range of usage. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, which language? It's defined as a verb in several languages, but not English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought we had the sense-linking capability. Preposition sense 7 or 8, defined as "To obtain". DCDuring TALK 17:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have sense-linking capability, just you haven't attempted to do so. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Been cleaned up- whatever the problem was --WF on Holiday (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I do it for you
Which sense does "everything I do, I do it for you" belong under? On behalf of? Directed at? Qualified Quantum Mechanic (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

stumped for an answer
In stumped for an answer, does for an answer mean the same as in not to take no for an answer? I've gone through the OED to no avail https://www.oed.com/oed2/00087678 --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

with the object or purpose of
with the object or purpose of: She likes to run for exercise. https://www.wordreference.com/definition/for such a meaning is currently missing isn' it? --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

for all of me
Is for all of me an idiom? --Backinstadiums (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

able for, O for
An RFV-RFD discussion at Talk:able for and one which will soon be archived to Talk:O for are relevant to and resulted in senses/content being added to this entry. - -sche (discuss) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–November 2021
(by extension of definition 5 above) – wanting
 * Who's for ice-cream?
 * I'm for going by train

Definition 5 is in favor of.

I don't see that "wanting" fits the usage examples better than "in favor of".

As the most frequent senses of wanting are "lacking" (adj.) and "without" and "less' (prep.), this sense is misleading, especially since its existence implies something somehow distinct from the "in favor of" definition given in def. 5. DCDuring (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Cf. . Equinox ◑ 17:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that "wanting" is supposed to be augmenting or re-expressing the "supporting, in favour of" definitions, rather than expressing a distinct sense. Mihia (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, the definition is indeed wanting. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  09:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. DAVilla 22:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - excarnateSojourner (talk|contrib) 21:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 04:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * RFD sense-deleted —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 04:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Used to introduce a subject within a to-infinitive clause
I think this is too broad. For example, is it O.K. for purpose infinitives such as the following?

I opened the door for the cat to get out  JMGN (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think. If I understand you correctly, you object to the word within in the definition. Within may have been selected by a linguistics major and may be technically correct - for linguistics. This dictionary is or should be intended for normal users, including those learning English. I have replaced within with of in the definition. If this still doesn't seem right to you, please say so. DCDuring (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I worded my OP awfully. Take a look again. It is still too broad.
 * It is not grammatical in a sentence such asI opened the door for the cat to get , meaning I opened it so (that) the cat would get out. JMGN (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is grammatical, though the use of get ("To go, to leave; to scram") is awkward. Get, like scram, is usually used in the imperative ("I've had enough of you, so get!") and in reported use of the imperative ("I told that cat to get."). Neither is common in the past ("I told that cat to get, so he *got."), in progressive use ("The cat was *getting."), or with modal and auxiliary verbs. If you substituted go or leave for get the sentence is completely unobjectionable. DCDuring (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)