Does anyone else find the use of "for" as a conjunction connecting two independent clauses, really uncanny in Modern English? I think it's because nowadays everyone uses "because" instead of "for" in that situation, so the use of "for" sounds archaic and tryhard and fake.Take these examples from a short story I read recently. >To pace for so long in a sauna is dangerous, and were the older woman to faint, the in-between woman would have to face this moral test—to leave the sauna or to call for help—a test she would not pass, for she is no savior.>“I’m sure,” says the in-between woman, who does not know this daughter, has never met this person, but believes the older woman, for she has no reason not to.>Blood sisters (a true fantasy, for the older woman is terrified of blood, blood of all kinds, especially her own).It just sounds so weird. The author should have used "because" instead.
no, for using for in this way sounds better than because
>>24745703It doesn't sound better, for it sounds like you're trying to imitate McCarthy.
>>24745699I like it. "Because" is a clunky Latin-English bastard child. "For" is a strong Germanic preposition.
>>24745745I know it's better, which is why it sounds weird, because it's too good for the way people talk and write usually. It's like putting caviar on Wonder Bread.
>>24745699>To pace because so long In a sauna is dangerousFor the second sentence "because" works better rhythmically, the extra syllable, not sure on the first. It is difficult to say with such a short excerpt, kit is not enough to figure out what is going on with the rhythm, sort of looks like it is purposefully being derailed before that third sentence.
>>24745814Wrong 'for'
“Because” sounds pretentious. Just say cuz
>>24747219>t. filteredThe anon addressed the conjuctions, I suspect his green text was making a point regarding the author's choice in the use of for instead of because, that it is part of a larger rhythmical structure which your excerpt obscures and that first "for" hints at.
>>24747700OP specifically specifies conjuctions between independent clauses, not for other coordination
>>24747706Anon, read what he wrote after the greentext.
>>24747700>suspect his green text was making a pointPretty much. The greentext is all that is needed to make my point for anyone who can stop and think for 3 seconds, but this is /lit/ and no one thinks, they just react.
>>24745699>Does anyone else find the use of "for" as a conjunction connecting two independent clauses, really uncanny in Modern English?I find that comma really jarring, mate.
