I’m hungry, as/for I haven't eaten.

< Previous | Next >

Karen123456

Senior Member
Malaysia English
I’m hungry, as I haven't eaten.
I’m hungry, for I haven't eaten.

Is the comma after "hungry" optional in both sentences?

Thanks.
 
  • perpend

    Banned
    American English
    I would use the comma in both cases.

    I would also say: I'm hungry, since/because I haven't eaten.
     

    haiwen_liao

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    I agree with prepend. I think that "since or because" will be better than "as or for". But I don't provide a fully reason to explain why I choice it. That's all.What are your option? I am very eager to hear what anyone say.
     

    Vjean

    Senior Member
    filipino
    I’m hungry, as I haven't eaten.
    I’m hungry, for I haven't eaten.

    Is the comma after "hungry" optional in both sentences?

    Thanks.

    As, for, because, since they're pretty much all synonymous. You could check it online for definitions.
     

    natkretep

    Moderato con anima (English Only)
    English (Singapore/UK), basic Chinese
    I think the commas are optional. (I'm OK with as; for​ sounds a little old fashioned.)
     

    Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    I've just noticed that the absence of a comma after conjunctions in my own post just now changes the meaning of what I wanted to say!
    But there are no conjunctions in your post. Oh, you mean after the word conjunctions! Yes, the difference between a defining and non-defining clause. Might the presence or absence of a comma in the OP's sentences affect their meaning? Perhaps not ultimately, but what about while reading?

    I'd say the commas are optional, and I like it better without comma if using because, but a little better with comma if using as or for, and perhaps also with since.
    The reason for this is that it depends on how the reader will scan the sentence. Certain collocations may trigger associations which are going to throw you off course before you scan the next bit. The comma breaks the collocation, and so prevents the putative misleading association.

    Hungry as -> hungry as a wolf.
    Hungry for -> hungry for the flesh of an Englishman.
    Hungry since -> hungry since lunchtime, not having had time to eat.
    Hungry because -> (no association)
     

    e2efour

    Senior Member
    UK English
    I wouldn't bother with a comma.
    But please don't use for in the sense of because. It sounds terribly old-fashioned and more suitable for 200 or more years ago. This meaning is also obsolete according to the OED.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top