In a technical sense, it isn’t obvious at all that the for-clause is a fragment.

The problem is that “for” sits on the boundary between coordination and subordination. It has certain qualities of both categories. Unlike “because” and other clear subordinators, for-clauses cannot be fronted within their own sentence. Compare (rewriting the original to make it more comprehensible):

(1) Because this quote reminds us that loyalty is the true test of manhood, it exemplifies the warrior ethos of Beowulf.
(2) *For this quote reminds us that loyalty is the true test of manhood, it exemplifies the warrior ethos of Beowulf.

It also can’t be coordinated:

(3) This quote exemplifies the warrior ethos of Beowulf because it reminds us that loyalty is the true test of manhood and because it warns that without constant heroism society is doomed.
(4) *This quote exemplifies the warrior ethos of Beowulf, for it reminds us that loyalty is the true test of manhood and for it warns that without constant heroism society is doomed.

These restrictions make it resemble the pure coordinators.

“For” differs from the pure coordinators in that it’s restricted to appearing with finite clauses and that you can’t chain for-clauses in a series. Those features make it seem more like a subordinator.

So whether you classify “for” as a subordinator or a coordinator depends on which of these features you find most salient. Most contemporary usage manuals implicitly group “for” with the coordinators, given the FANBOYS rules for creating complete sentences. If you accept that categorization as standard, then the only remaining question is whether or not you think it’s permissible to start a sentence with a coordinator, something the vast majority of usage books license. 

So while I would say that there certainly is some evidence to classify “for” as a subordinator (or a preposition, if you prefer the CGEL terminology), I find it extremely problematic to regard it as an unquestionable fragment, particularly for the purpose of docking points from a student’s composition, since punctuating sentences starting with “for” is clearly approved of by many usage books, as well as long historical precedent.

Karl

> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Albert E. Krahn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 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/

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/