McParadigm wrote:
stip wrote:
McParadigm wrote:
stip wrote:
iceagecoming wrote:
i think the word 'for' is just a replacement for 'positive'. For or against etc.
"so much to talk about but nothing for (positive) to say"..
It makes perfect sense to me
"so much to talk about but nothing for (positive) to say"..
It makes perfect sense to me
It doesn't make perfect sense to me but you could be right.
I was listening to avocado when I was in my car yesterday and I kept coming back to WWS. I think this is my favorite on the new record again. Sorry severed hand and life wasted
Grammatically speaking, it's a perfectly acceptable sentence. It's merely a form of syntax that has been becoming less and less common over the last 200 years. Fifty years from now, it will probably not exist in any useful function. But it is the Queen's English.
How can that sentence work without a subject? I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just confused.
As was mentioned before, nothing is the subject. In this case, 'for to say' is the complete predicate, with 'for to' being treated as an extended version of 'to.' Technically, this makes it a prepositional phrase, but technicality always gives in to function. In earlier English, 'for to' was the common speak version of what we now just use 'to' for. Over time, it became rare and therefore became a fancier phrase which people associated with status. I seem to recall that one of Shakespeare's contemporaries used it to make fun of royalty by having a commoner constantly use it in a play. But it really showed up in literature and even commonspeak to some degree until around the American Civil War. And, as I said, even now you find it now and again. I think it appears in more poetic writing mostly on the part of writers (Ed, in this case) who know as certain number of syllables to make a phrase bounce. But it's proper and good.
thanks. I did not know that. I'm glad to hear it. I always hated that line
