Talk:for to

.
for to is not obsolete, it's used in hiberno-english to this day.
 * It isn't, but it says that it's obsolete, except for in dialects. Also, both the definitions are redundant.  It's the infinitive, with implication that the part before it is the reason for it happening.  Please sign your post, for if you don't I cain't know who you are.(sign it by adding 4 tildes[ ~ ]). JustinCB (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September–October 2021

 * 1)  In order to.
 * What went ye out for to see?
 * 1) * 1937, John Betjeman, The Arrest of Oscar Wilde at the Cadogan Hotel
 * “Mr. Woilde, we ‘ave come for tew take yew Where felons and criminals dwell: We must ask yew tew leave with us quoietly [sic] For this is the Cadogan Hotel.”
 * 1) * 2004,, "Honey I Been Thinking About You":
 * All that I need for to be satisfied is a woman who's nothing like me.
 * 1) * 1971, Dewey Bunnell, ""
 * "In the desert you can remember your name,
 * 'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain."
 * 1)  for; to
 * [I have changed the presentation of the article since the above, but this doesn't affect the main point of the RFV.]
 * 1)  for; to
 * [I have changed the presentation of the article since the above, but this doesn't affect the main point of the RFV.]
 * [I have changed the presentation of the article since the above, but this doesn't affect the main point of the RFV.]

RFV sense #3. Seeking verification of the sense "for", and also verification of whether the sense in "I got a car, for to drive", which is presumably meant to illustrate "to" (?) is either #1 or #2, or is something different -- something that would explain "to" being joined with "for" on the same definition line maybe? See also Tea_room/2021/August. Mihia (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We have ‘for’ being a particle meaning ‘to’ in black speech at our for entry and in fact in Wright’s dialect dictionary he lists several West Country examples of this use (and a Cheshire one) but this is highly non-standard and probably obsolete (outside of the variant forms ‘fi’ and ‘fe’) and a definition of ‘to’ comes under sense 1 or 2 anyway, so we probably should delete sense 3 (as for what to do with the usex at sense 3, it probably does belong under sense 1, though I agree it sounds a little off. We could just remove it.). Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, for sure we shouldn't be using such dialect forms actually in our definitions, at least not without ample warning, so if "for" is just dialect "to" then we should get rid of it. I wonder whether something else was intended, though. Or perhaps it's just a faulty or muddled up definition, I'm really not sure. Mihia (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)