Is “For why” improper English?
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I use the phrase "For why" quite often and my friends laugh at me for it.
For example, I asked my friend about why he was going and I had asked him "for why are you going?"
Is this an incorrect use? And if so why?
grammar grammaticality american-english
edited Dec 4 at 19:16
Laurel
29.4k655104
asked Dec 4 at 18:23
Vugar Sadygov
11
New contributor
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I use the phrase "For why" quite often and my friends laugh at me for it.
For example, I asked my friend about why he was going and I had asked him "for why are you going?"
Is this an incorrect use? And if so why?
grammar grammaticality american-english
edited Dec 4 at 19:16
Laurel
29.4k655104
asked Dec 4 at 18:23
Vugar Sadygov
11
New contributor
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Give an example of when you would use "For why?"
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 18:23
1
Yes, that's not a native usage. You're mingling "For what?" and "Why?" Why functions all by itself. "What are you going for?" is equivalent to "Why are you going?"
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 18:26
1
'For why' can be idiomatic in certain contexts, but it sounds rather old-fashioned. Googling 'for why' (in quotes) I discovered that there was a single word 'forwhy' in Middle English.
– Kate Bunting
Dec 4 at 18:37
1
@Robusto If a clause headed by why is the object of for, it can be idiomatic (though generally it feels more natural to me to leave out the preposition even there), e.g., “dispiriting evidence for why people fall for stupid fake images online” – but that is of course a very different situation from the one this question is about, since for here collocates with the preceding noun/verb/whatever.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 4 at 20:24
2
@JanusBahsJacquet: I realize that it is possible to put virtually any two words together, but the OP's context is what matters here. I really wouldn't ever call that usage to be "idiomatic."
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 22:23
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I use the phrase "For why" quite often and my friends laugh at me for it.
For example, I asked my friend about why he was going and I had asked him "for why are you going?"
Is this an incorrect use? And if so why?
grammar grammaticality american-english
edited Dec 4 at 19:16
Laurel
29.4k655104
asked Dec 4 at 18:23
Vugar Sadygov
11
New contributor
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I use the phrase "For why" quite often and my friends laugh at me for it.
For example, I asked my friend about why he was going and I had asked him "for why are you going?"
Is this an incorrect use? And if so why?
grammar grammaticality american-english
grammar grammaticality american-english
edited Dec 4 at 19:16
Laurel
29.4k655104
asked Dec 4 at 18:23
Vugar Sadygov
11
New contributor
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Dec 4 at 19:16
Laurel
29.4k655104
asked Dec 4 at 18:23
Vugar Sadygov
11
New contributor
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Dec 4 at 19:16
Laurel
29.4k655104
edited Dec 4 at 19:16
Laurel
29.4k655104
edited Dec 4 at 19:16
Laurel
29.4k655104
29.4k655104
asked Dec 4 at 18:23
Vugar Sadygov
11
New contributor
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Dec 4 at 18:23
Vugar Sadygov
11
asked Dec 4 at 18:23
Vugar Sadygov
11
11
New contributor
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Give an example of when you would use "For why?"
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 18:23
1
Yes, that's not a native usage. You're mingling "For what?" and "Why?" Why functions all by itself. "What are you going for?" is equivalent to "Why are you going?"
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 18:26
1
'For why' can be idiomatic in certain contexts, but it sounds rather old-fashioned. Googling 'for why' (in quotes) I discovered that there was a single word 'forwhy' in Middle English.
– Kate Bunting
Dec 4 at 18:37
1
@Robusto If a clause headed by why is the object of for, it can be idiomatic (though generally it feels more natural to me to leave out the preposition even there), e.g., “dispiriting evidence for why people fall for stupid fake images online” – but that is of course a very different situation from the one this question is about, since for here collocates with the preceding noun/verb/whatever.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 4 at 20:24
2
@JanusBahsJacquet: I realize that it is possible to put virtually any two words together, but the OP's context is what matters here. I really wouldn't ever call that usage to be "idiomatic."
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 22:23
|
show 5 more comments
1
Give an example of when you would use "For why?"
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 18:23
1
Yes, that's not a native usage. You're mingling "For what?" and "Why?" Why functions all by itself. "What are you going for?" is equivalent to "Why are you going?"
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 18:26
1
'For why' can be idiomatic in certain contexts, but it sounds rather old-fashioned. Googling 'for why' (in quotes) I discovered that there was a single word 'forwhy' in Middle English.
– Kate Bunting
Dec 4 at 18:37
1
@Robusto If a clause headed by why is the object of for, it can be idiomatic (though generally it feels more natural to me to leave out the preposition even there), e.g., “dispiriting evidence for why people fall for stupid fake images online” – but that is of course a very different situation from the one this question is about, since for here collocates with the preceding noun/verb/whatever.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 4 at 20:24
2
@JanusBahsJacquet: I realize that it is possible to put virtually any two words together, but the OP's context is what matters here. I really wouldn't ever call that usage to be "idiomatic."
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 22:23
1
1
Give an example of when you would use "For why?"
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 18:23
Give an example of when you would use "For why?"
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 18:23
1
1
Yes, that's not a native usage. You're mingling "For what?" and "Why?" Why functions all by itself. "What are you going for?" is equivalent to "Why are you going?"
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 18:26
Yes, that's not a native usage. You're mingling "For what?" and "Why?" Why functions all by itself. "What are you going for?" is equivalent to "Why are you going?"
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 18:26
1
1
'For why' can be idiomatic in certain contexts, but it sounds rather old-fashioned. Googling 'for why' (in quotes) I discovered that there was a single word 'forwhy' in Middle English.
– Kate Bunting
Dec 4 at 18:37
'For why' can be idiomatic in certain contexts, but it sounds rather old-fashioned. Googling 'for why' (in quotes) I discovered that there was a single word 'forwhy' in Middle English.
– Kate Bunting
Dec 4 at 18:37
1
1
@Robusto If a clause headed by why is the object of for, it can be idiomatic (though generally it feels more natural to me to leave out the preposition even there), e.g., “dispiriting evidence for why people fall for stupid fake images online” – but that is of course a very different situation from the one this question is about, since for here collocates with the preceding noun/verb/whatever.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 4 at 20:24
@Robusto If a clause headed by why is the object of for, it can be idiomatic (though generally it feels more natural to me to leave out the preposition even there), e.g., “dispiriting evidence for why people fall for stupid fake images online” – but that is of course a very different situation from the one this question is about, since for here collocates with the preceding noun/verb/whatever.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 4 at 20:24
2
2
@JanusBahsJacquet: I realize that it is possible to put virtually any two words together, but the OP's context is what matters here. I really wouldn't ever call that usage to be "idiomatic."
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 22:23
@JanusBahsJacquet: I realize that it is possible to put virtually any two words together, but the OP's context is what matters here. I really wouldn't ever call that usage to be "idiomatic."
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 22:23
|
show 5 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
The two expressions that are idiomatic in this context are "why" or "for what reason", with the former being the preferred option.
"For why" (also hyphenated or written as one word) meaning "why" as a direct interrogative was used in Old and Middle English (see the MED's entry), but it became obsolete sometime around the year 1500. Other senses of the expression (for example, it was used as a conjunction meaning "because") gradually over time all dropped out of use, so the word is completely obsolete and is marked as such by the OED.
At this point "for why" isn't even used in contexts where people are trying to sound archaic.
answered Dec 4 at 19:38
Laurel
29.4k655104
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
The two expressions that are idiomatic in this context are "why" or "for what reason", with the former being the preferred option.
"For why" (also hyphenated or written as one word) meaning "why" as a direct interrogative was used in Old and Middle English (see the MED's entry), but it became obsolete sometime around the year 1500. Other senses of the expression (for example, it was used as a conjunction meaning "because") gradually over time all dropped out of use, so the word is completely obsolete and is marked as such by the OED.
At this point "for why" isn't even used in contexts where people are trying to sound archaic.
answered Dec 4 at 19:38
Laurel
29.4k655104
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The two expressions that are idiomatic in this context are "why" or "for what reason", with the former being the preferred option.
"For why" (also hyphenated or written as one word) meaning "why" as a direct interrogative was used in Old and Middle English (see the MED's entry), but it became obsolete sometime around the year 1500. Other senses of the expression (for example, it was used as a conjunction meaning "because") gradually over time all dropped out of use, so the word is completely obsolete and is marked as such by the OED.
At this point "for why" isn't even used in contexts where people are trying to sound archaic.
answered Dec 4 at 19:38
Laurel
29.4k655104
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The two expressions that are idiomatic in this context are "why" or "for what reason", with the former being the preferred option.
"For why" (also hyphenated or written as one word) meaning "why" as a direct interrogative was used in Old and Middle English (see the MED's entry), but it became obsolete sometime around the year 1500. Other senses of the expression (for example, it was used as a conjunction meaning "because") gradually over time all dropped out of use, so the word is completely obsolete and is marked as such by the OED.
At this point "for why" isn't even used in contexts where people are trying to sound archaic.
answered Dec 4 at 19:38
Laurel
29.4k655104
The two expressions that are idiomatic in this context are "why" or "for what reason", with the former being the preferred option.
"For why" (also hyphenated or written as one word) meaning "why" as a direct interrogative was used in Old and Middle English (see the MED's entry), but it became obsolete sometime around the year 1500. Other senses of the expression (for example, it was used as a conjunction meaning "because") gradually over time all dropped out of use, so the word is completely obsolete and is marked as such by the OED.
At this point "for why" isn't even used in contexts where people are trying to sound archaic.
answered Dec 4 at 19:38
Laurel
29.4k655104
answered Dec 4 at 19:38
Laurel
29.4k655104
answered Dec 4 at 19:38
Laurel
29.4k655104
answered Dec 4 at 19:38
Laurel
29.4k655104
29.4k655104
add a comment |
add a comment |
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Vugar Sadygov is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f475616%2fis-for-why-improper-english%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Give an example of when you would use "For why?"
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 18:23
1
Yes, that's not a native usage. You're mingling "For what?" and "Why?" Why functions all by itself. "What are you going for?" is equivalent to "Why are you going?"
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 18:26
1
'For why' can be idiomatic in certain contexts, but it sounds rather old-fashioned. Googling 'for why' (in quotes) I discovered that there was a single word 'forwhy' in Middle English.
– Kate Bunting
Dec 4 at 18:37
1
@Robusto If a clause headed by why is the object of for, it can be idiomatic (though generally it feels more natural to me to leave out the preposition even there), e.g., “dispiriting evidence for why people fall for stupid fake images online” – but that is of course a very different situation from the one this question is about, since for here collocates with the preceding noun/verb/whatever.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 4 at 20:24
2
@JanusBahsJacquet: I realize that it is possible to put virtually any two words together, but the OP's context is what matters here. I really wouldn't ever call that usage to be "idiomatic."
– Robusto
Dec 4 at 22:23