I don't recall seeing any really good responses to this request over 
the last few digests:

-------------
Please read the following and tell me if you would consider the last 
sentence a fragment:
  "This quote from Beowulf exemplifies not only the best of man but 
the worst of man as well. For this quote is a reminder to all that 
standing by each other, through thick and thin, is the real test of 
being a man of true worth."
---------------------

It is quite obviously a fragment in the technical sense. It is a 
subordinate clause. It begins with a subordinator. "For" here is 
equivalent to "because." It is not a coordinator.

The writer made a simple mistake by including the "for." The sentence 
stands alone without it. It also could have worked all right had the 
writer changed the punctuation:

                                 . . . worst of man as well for this 
quote is . . .

Some people might want to include a comma:

                                 . . . worst of man as well, for this 
quote is . . .

(In the case of "for," the ambiguous subordinator/coordinator, the 
comma might be helpful, but with other subordinators it might be redundant.)

----------------------------

But imagine the sentences reversed and with a more accurate subordinator:

"Because this quote is a reminder to all that standing by each other, 
through thick and thin, is the real test of being a man of true 
worth, this quote from Beowulf exemplifies not only the best of man 
but the worst of man as well."

Indeed, this order might be preferable because cause and effect would 
be in a better relationship.
---------------
So, you could criticize the writer for: 1. logical order; 2. 
punctuation; or 3. word choice (for).

But it is technically a fragment.


Albert E. Krahn
[log in to unmask]

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/