comma vs full stop before 'for' [conjunction]: waiting on a wall, for

Here's a paragraph copied from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

It seemed that Professor McGonagall had reached the point she was most anxious to discuss, the real reason she had been waiting on a cold hard wall all day, for neither as a cat nor as a woman has she fixed Dumbledore with such a piercing stare as she did now.

It seems to be a complete sentence but why there's a comma (, but not a full stop) before "for"? Also, I'm confused by the preposition, for. What is the function of "for" and can I delete it? Also, I literally understand the phrase "neither as a cat nor as a woman", but does it have an implied meaning?

Thanks for your help first. I can't find all the answers in the dictionary.

"For" is one of our coordinating conjunctions, Godfrey Chan. Using one of these conjunctions - for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so - with a comma is ordinary punctuation for connecting two clauses. You really shouldn't delete "for" here. It means something very similar to "because".

"Neither as a cat or as a woman" tells us that the professor can change into either a cat or a woman. Never before has she stared at Dumbledore in such a way. Not when she has been a cat. Not when she has been a woman. The stare is something new.

For could be omitted, but it would create an independent clause of "neither as a cat..." and this would have to be a new sentence, or preceded by a semi-colon or colon. Furthermore, for indicates reason (because), and to omit it would remove the connection of reason between the two statements which the writer wishes to make.

The comma before for is one of a pair separating the appositive phrase "the real reason she had been waiting on a cold hard wall all day". Nevertheless, if this phrase were omitted a comma would still be used before for because the phrase beginning with for is not essential (see this explanation, using because, on the Chicago Style website).

Although the sentence in question is complete, I can understand godfreychan's unease with it. For what it's worth, and at the risk of offending all the Harry Potter lovers out there, I would have made two sentences out of it, or at least used a semicolon somewhere.

Never having read any "Harry Potter" novels, I'm certainly not offended that you would dare change something in one of them, Idialegre. I am surprised that you understand Godfrey's "unease" with the sentence.

What is it that bothers you here? Using a semicolon and deleting the comma and "for" is certainly possible. But it wouldn't have the poetic ring to it that the fine conjunction "for" does. I seem to recall that other members have disliked sentences built with this conjunction. That really puzzles me.

Well, owlman5, I join you in never having read any of the Harry Potter books. (Although I did see Daniel Radcliffe in "Equus.")

What bothers me about the sentence is not the use of for; I have no problem at all with that. I simply find the sentence a bit unclear on the first reading. The main culprit is, in my opinion, the first comma, which I think would have been better as a colon. Failing that, I think a semi-colon in place of the second comma would make the phrasing clearer. As it is, it all just feels a bit lopsided to me.

I'm not claiming that the sentence is wrong. I just don't much like it, which is why I chose the word "unease." But of course you can't argue with success, and the Harry Potter books are nothing if not successful. So who am I...

I'd say that you are a person who knows how to argue your point, Idialegre. :) I'm particularly fond of simple punctuation with commas and the old, short coordinating conjunctions that do such a fine job of connecting clauses in this and many other languages. "For" seems to have fallen out of favor as our language ages. I mourn the loss.

owlman5 said:

"For" seems to have fallen out of favor as our language ages. I mourn the loss.

Click to expand...

Join the club. I'm still busy mourning for "whom."