A usage of "for" from Cambridge Dictionary

Jawel7

Senior Member
Turkish
Hello everyone.
Cambridge Dictionary says:" For can be also used to mean intended to be given to:"
In this way,
Can I make the following sentences?

1-) For you, I have a gift which you would definitely like to have.

2-) For three people, we have a room at the end of the corridor that has just been cleaned.

Thank you in advance.
 
  • Jawel7

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    Yes.

    But I think the dictionary mainly means expressions like: "I've bought this vase as a present for my mother. I shall wrap it up this evening."
    I see, yes your example also seem to be sensible to me. So, we can say that my examples are fine and there is no problem with the location of "for"(at the beginning). @Keith Bradford
     

    Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    I think there's a huge problem with the 'for' phrase at the beginning. It is not natural English.

    I have a gift for you ...,
    We have a room for three, which has just been cleaned, at the end of the corridor.

    (The original sounds as if the corridor has just been cleaned.)
     

    Jawel7

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    I think there's a huge problem with the 'for' phrase at the beginning. It is not natural English.

    I have a gift for you ...,
    We have a room for three, which has just been cleaned, at the end of the corridor.

    (The original sounds as if the corridor has just been cleaned.)
    Your examples are completely perfect. I am aware of that, however, I can't see any technical/theoretical reason for "for" phrase at the beginning or at the last to be a problem.

    - We have a room, which has just been cleaned, at the end of the corridor for three.
    - For three, we have a room...

    * We have a room at the end of the corridor.
    For how many people?
    For three.(It states for how many people we have)
    Could you please explain to me what is wrong with them technically(with English grammar rules) ?
    @Hermione Golightly
     

    Keith Bradford

    Senior Member
    English (Midlands UK)
    I'm not as anxious as Hermione. Though I agree that these detached adjectival/adverbial phrases are better placed within the sentence rather than at the beginning, they're quite grammatically correct and (used in moderation) they can be colloquial.

    I think their main purpose is to introduce a general idea which is then expanded on, e.g:
    • For three people, we have a room at the end of the corridor, a suite on the first floor, or a penthouse suite.
    • I've chosen a present for my sister. For my mother, I'm trying to decide between a vase and the collected erotica of Aubrey Beardsley.
    Those would be hard to rewrite without putting the for-phrase at the beginning.
     

    Thomas Tompion

    Senior Member
    English - England
    I think there's a huge problem with the 'for' phrase at the beginning. It is not natural English.

    I have a gift for you ...,
    We have a room for
    three, which has just been cleaned, at the end of the corridor.
    (The original sounds as if the corridor has just been cleaned.)
    I can't agree, Hermione.

    There are circumstances where the, more rhetorical, For you I have a pair of handcuffs seems entirely natural to me.
     

    heypresto

    Senior Member
    English - England
    I can't see any technical/theoretical reason for "for" phrase at the beginning or at the last to be a problem.

    - We have a room, which has just been cleaned, at the end of the corridor for three.
    The problem with this sentence isn't so much technical or theoretical as semantic. It seems to say that the the corridor is 'for three'. It's very hard to read 'for three' as referring to the room.
     

    Jawel7

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    The problem with this sentence isn't so much technical or theoretical as semantic. It seems to say that the the corridor is 'for three'. It's very hard to read 'for three' as referring to the room.
    But you don't need to take "for three" to "the room".
    In that sentence, it doesn't refer to the room indeed. It refers to "have" and says "for how many people you have a room". @heypresto
     

    heypresto

    Senior Member
    English - England
    I took it to be a room that can accommodate three people. But this aside ' . . . at the end of the corridor for three.' seems to say the corridor is for three people.

    That's why it's better to place 'for three' where Hermione Golightly placed it in post #5. It's the natural position for it, and makes the sentence far easier to read and understand.
     

    Jawel7

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    I took it to be a room that can accommodate three people. But this aside ' . . . at the end of the corridor for three.' seems to say the corridor is for three people.

    That's why it's better to place 'for three' where Hermione Golightly placed it in post #5. It's the natural position for it, and makes the sentence far easier to read and understand.
    I don't think that "for three people" at the end has to refer to "the corridor". "For+noun" has some different functions such as the following sentence;

    "There is an important letter on the desk for you."
    Most probably, you will say that it is better to say:" There is an important letter for you on the table." and I will agree with you.
    However, it doesn't mean that it is wrong technically to put "for you" at the end.
     

    heypresto

    Senior Member
    English - England
    You're right, "for three people" at the end doesn't have to refer to "the corridor", but because of its position it's very hard not to read it as referring to the corridor.

    It reminds me of a very old joke:

    A: I know a man with a wooden leg named Jack.
    B: Oh, and what's the name of his other leg?

    "There is an important letter on the desk for you."
    I have no problem with this, as 'the desk for you' doesn't make make me think that the desk is for me in the same way as 'the corridor for three' makes me think that the corridor is for three people.

    I think it's fair to say that sometimes it doesn't matter where you put the 'for . . . ' part, and sometimes it does. And it may depend on what follows 'for'.
     

    Jawel7

    Senior Member
    Turkish
    You're right, "for three people" at the end doesn't have to refer to "the corridor", but because of its position it's very hard not to read it as referring to the corridor.

    It reminds me of a very old joke:

    A: I know a man with a wooden leg named Jack.
    B: Oh, and what's the name of his other leg?


    I have no problem with this, as 'the desk for you' doesn't make make me think that the desk is for me in the same way as 'the corridor for three' makes me think that the corridor is for three people.

    I think it's fair to say that sometimes it doesn't matter where you put the 'for . . . ' part, and sometimes it does. And it may depend on what follows 'for'.
    Well, in order to get into more technical points, I would like to ask you whether or not you think that the following sentence is natural English.
    - I have a gift which is for you.
    Why I am asking it is because if you think that "for you" must definitely be just after "a gift", you consider "for you" as an adjectival phrase referring to "a gift". @heypresto @Hermione Golightly
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top