1 Introduction
English allows for two kinds of predicative complements: those that are related to a subject, as in (1) and (2), and those related to a direct object, as in (3) and (4). Both types of complements can take the form of a noun phrase or adjective phrase, and can express depictive or resultative meaning. In each case the predicand, in the sense of Huddleston & Pullum et al. (2002: 217), is underlined:
(1) I have known Professor Tyson for approximately a decade and she is a friend. (2019, News on the Web Corpus (NOW, Davies 2016–): US)
(2) The vehicle's engine became very hot, and Jackson had the electrical system checked. (2016, NOW: New Zealand)
(3) I considered her a friend. (2010, NOW: UK)
(4) Leave it on for 20 minutes, and then rinse it clean. (2022, NOW: buzzfeed.com)
Typically, subject-related predicative complements occur after copular verbs such as be, become, seem, appear, etc., while object-related predicative complements are placed after the objects of verbs such as consider, deem, appoint, make, or verbs that allow the expression of a result, such as wipe, scrub, polish, etc.
English also permits a predicative complement in the shape of a noun phrase or adjective phrase after the prepositions for and as in what I will call the oblique predicative construction. As with the constructions in (1)–(4), such phrases can be predicated of a subject, as in (5)–(8), or of an object, as in (9)–(12):
(5) Now, the mango chicken on its own would make for a great meal! (2016, The iWeb Corpus (iWeb, Davies Reference Davies2018))
(6) This is the sort of shot that might once have passed for real, before people got wise. (2022, NOW: pocket-lint.com)
(7) For 22 years, he was a member of Spring Cove School Board, where he had formerly served as president. (2017, iWeb)
(8) Corner Traction Control now comes as standard. (2013, iWeb)
(9) Its lifespan was even threatened again when a DVD distribution company mistook it for piracy. (2010, iWeb)
(10) And these people left me for dead. (2014, iWeb)
(11) The rest of London, however, quite naturally regarded them as spoiled twits. (2003, iWeb)
(12) Only 30 per cent of end users rated relationship as important. (2017, iWeb)Footnote 2
In these cases, the phrases introduced by the prepositions as and for function as oblique predicative complement. Notice that predicative complements that are realised as noun phrases are non-referential.
In the passive versions of (9)–(12) the oblique predicative complement is also predicated of a subject:
(13) Its lifespan was even threatened again when it was taken for piracy by a DVD distribution company.
(14) I was left for dead by these people.
(15) They were regarded, quite naturally, by the rest of London as spoiled twits.
(16) Relationship was rated as important by only 30 percent of end users.
Grammars of English generally regard the oblique predicative construction as more or less identical to the ‘ordinary’ predicative constructions shown in (1)–(4), or at least as ‘parallel’ (Jespersen Reference Jespersen1909–49, IV: 375).
In this article I will trace the history of oblique predicative constructions involving for, as and a number of additional prepositions, broadly following the standard analysis of these constructions outlined above, as found in for example Quirk et al. (Reference Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik1985: 1200), Huddleston & Pullum et al. (Reference Huddleston and Pullum2002: 255, 279–80) and Aarts (Reference Aarts2011).Footnote 3 As we will see in section 2, these constructions date from Old English (OE), but over time some of them have fallen by the wayside. Of all the prepositions that can occur in this construction for and as remain in Present-Day English (PDE). In section 3 I will propose a specialised semantics for for and as, which we can characterise as qua and qualitate qua, and I will ask whether predicative for is obsolescent, given Visser's claim that predicative as is now dominant at the expense of for. I will argue that this is not the case: predicative for survives in English due to the productivity and persistence of a number of constructions involving this preposition. These will be discussed in sections 3.2–3.5.
2 The history of oblique predicative constructions
It is possible to reconstruct the history of oblique predicative constructions in the English language from the data in Visser's monumental Historical Syntax of the English Language and a few other sources, such as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).Footnote 4 From these sources it becomes clear that a number of different constructions were in competition with each other, involving different prepositions. In the following sections I discuss for, (swa) swa/as, to, unto and into.
2.1 Constructions with for
The oblique predicative construction with for is one of the oldest, and is found in many languages, as Jespersen (Reference Jespersen1909–49, IV: 386) shows, including Gothic, Greek, Latin, Russian, Spanish, Dutch and German. In English it can be traced back to Old English. The Oxford English Dictionary records this example from Beowulf:
Visser (Reference Visser1963–73, I: 587–8) has many examples of the construction from across the centuries, which often share a common semantics. Here are some further examples from OE to PDE:
Visser (Reference Visser1963–73: 562–3) mentions a further construction, ‘more often used in literary than in conversational diction’, that lasted from Middle English onwards until at least the late nineteenth century, exemplified by (24) and (25):
(24) There was scarce one of the ladies that hadn't a relation a peer. (1847, Thackeray, Vanity Fair; quoted in Visser Reference Visser1963–73, I: 563)
(25) A proud day for her to have a son a mitred abbot. (1879, R. L. Stevenson, Travels with a Donkey in the Cévennes; quoted in Visser Reference Visser1963–73, I: 563)
These can be paraphrased with for: ‘There was scarce one of the ladies that hadn't a peer for a relation’ and ‘A proud day for her to have a mitred abbot for a son’.
Visser notes that constructions with for ‘still predominated in the beginning of the sixteenth century, but that ‘[o]nly a small number of the listed constructions have survived into Pres. D. English; among them are know for, (choose for), have for, take for, mistake for, count for, set down for, together with such combinations as curse for, confound for, damn for, blame for’ (Reference Visser1963–73, I: 587–8). The recent examples above, and further examples in section 3, show that predicative for is more widespread and productive than Visser suggests.
2.2 Constructions with swa (swa) and as in Old English
Mitchell (Reference Mitchell1985: 451) and Visser (Reference Visser1963–73, I: 587) cite OE examples with swa (swa), the ancestor of as:
The example in (27) is noteworthy because it features both for and swa swa.
Constructions with as, the ‘successor’ of swa (swa), seem to have originated in Middle English. Here is a selection of examples:
Visser suggests that as gradually took over from for in oblique predicative constructions and that in PDE it is the most common preposition.
In Old, Middle and early Modern English for and to were largely predominant. As was extremely rare in Middle English, remained the exception in early Modern English, to become, however, the favourite in Pres. D. English by gradually replacing the older rivals …. (Visser Reference Visser1963–73, I: 586)Footnote 6
In section 3.1 I will argue that as replaced unto, to and into, but should be distinguished semantically from for, which survives with a specialised meaning.
2.3 Constructions with to, unto and into
Constructions with to, unto and into were used from Old English up to the late nineteenth century, as testified by Visser's and Jespersen's data, to introduce what the latter calls a ‘predicative of becoming’, with nouns and sometimes adjectives following the preposition (see also Quirk & Wrenn Reference Quirk and Wrenn1957: 60–1). Jespersen, Visser and the OED record the following examples over time:
Oblique predicative constructions with to, unto and into are largely obsolete in PDE, except archaically, for example in the marriage ceremony (I take thee to my wedded wife/husband).Footnote 8
2.4 For and as combined
As we have seen, as increased in frequency in oblique predicative constructions. This raises the question when this occurred. A possible answer lies in a set of examples listed in Visser (Reference Visser1963–73: 587) and in the Middle English Dictionary (MED) which combine as and for, followed by a noun or adjective. These range from the early fourteenth century to 1522:Footnote 9
My explanation for the existence of these constructions is that they suggest that for a period of time writers were uncertain whether to use for or as: their meanings were not very different, and to avoid making a choice they simply used both at the same time.
We can summarise the history of the various constructions discussed so far as in table 1. We can see here that as for was used for around 200 years. Although the data are sparse, this looks like a transition period, when as slowly became more common, but perhaps requiring semantic reinforcement from for.
Table 1. The use of for, swa (swa)/as, as for, to, unto and into in oblique predicative constructions from OE to PDE, based on Visser (Reference Visser1963–73)
3 The semantics of for and as
The history sketched in the previous section provides a timeline for the various uses of the prepositions used in the oblique predicative construction, as viewed by Visser, who claims that predicative for became the less favoured option. Does this mean that it is obsolescent? I will claim that this is not the case. In section 3.1 I will discuss the semantics of for and as, and I will argue that predicative for and as have acquired specialised meanings, which are preserved in a range of constructions, discussed in sections 3.2–3.5. The collective existence of these constructions explains why both predicative for and as persist in PDE.
3.1 Qua and qualitate qua
The Oxford English Dictionary defines predicative for as follows: ‘As being, as equivalent to, in the character of. Now chiefly restricted to use with certain verbs and in set phrases. Used especially to introduce the complement after copular verbs, where as, as being, or to be may generally be substituted’ (OED, s.v. for, A, VI, 18 a (a)). As is listed as an adverb or conjunction – not as a preposition – and is defined similarly: ‘in the character, capacity, or function of’ (OED, s.v. as, B, II, 11a(a)). Jespersen (Reference Jespersen1909–49, IV: 376) states that ‘[f]or with a predicative means practically the same thing as as’, and Poutsma writes: ‘[i]n some connexions we often find for as a variant of as’ (Reference Poutsma1914–29, I, first half: 349). But are for and as really the same, interchangeable, or one another's variants? I would argue that there is a difference in meaning between predicative for and predicative as, which can be characterised as follows:
(44) The meaning of predicative ‘for NP/AdjP’ is: ‘the referent of the predicand is considered qua NP/AdjP’.
(45) The meaning of predicative ‘as NP/AdjP’ is: ‘the referent of the predicand is considered qualitate qua NP/AdjP’.
‘Qua NP/AdjP’ is a shorthand for ‘as being’ (‘in its existence as’) NP/AdjP’.Footnote 10 By contrast, ‘qualitate qua NP/AdjP’ is shorthand for ‘in its capacity/identity/role as NP/AdjP’.
These differentiated meanings have a powerful explanatory force. Consider the following examples, which contain the pattern ‘take NP for’:
(46) They won't take me for (*as) a killer. They'll let me go free. (1996, COCA: MOV)
(47) Colonel Kinder concluded with the strongest compliment an officer can give. “I would take him as (*for) a soldier in the Army,” he said. (1995, COCA: NEWS)
In (46) the person referred to as ‘me’ is considered ‘as not being’ a killer (‘They won't take me to be a killer’). It is ungrammatical with as in the qua reading, but if an assassin were being contracted, the qualitate qua reading with as would be fine:
(48) That gang won't take me as a killer, but they will take me as a bruiser.
Example (47) signals a meaning to do with ‘his’ role as soldier in the army. It is ungrammatical with for in the qualitate qua reading, but in the following example the qua reading with for is fine:
(49) Considering his uniform, I would take him for a soldier in the army, not for an officer in the police force.
Consider next a recent example in which an author reflects on the end of her marriage:
(50) Looking at the wooden tallboy my mum bought us for a wedding present, two of the drawers suddenly empty, it was the first tangible moment of realisation that it wasn't just our marriage that was over, but the life we had created together and shared for 13 years. (The Guardian, 5 April 2023)
In this case as would also have been possible, but it would have meant that the writer was concerned with the item of furniture ‘in its identity/role as a wedding present’, whereas in fact she wishes to communicate that the tallboy's existence qua wedding present made her realise that her relationship to her husband had ended.
Verbs such as disguise, regard and see always take as:
(51) When she accidentally ruins her father's rickshaw she disguises herself as (*for) a boy and meets someone who will change her life. (2018, iWeb)
(52) One's attitude to him depends on whether you regard politics as (*for) a job with serious consequences, or as (*for) status theatre. (2019, NOW: UK)
(53) My colleagues seem startled when I mention Freud, but I see him as (*for) one of the few psychologists who failed to fall prey to physics envy. (2023, iWeb)
In each of these cases the status, role or identity of the referent of the predicand is at issue.
Having established the different meanings of for and as, let's return to the meanings expressed by examples (33)–(38) in section 2.3. Visser observed with regard to the verb habban:
The evidence shows that habban to and habban for had two meanings: (a) = to ‘possess’ in the quality of (‘he hæfde his sweostor to wife’, ‘I'm proud to have Cyril for a nephew’) and (b) = to regard as (‘hie gold to gode noldon habban’ [cf. (33) above], habban deadne mon for cwycone’ [cf. (18) above]); the two senses are, however, interrelated and discrimination is frequently difficult, as in ‘we han Abraham to fader’. (Visser Reference Visser1963–73, I: 588)
This suggests that from Old English to late modern times for and to could both express meanings similar to qua and qualitate qua which were not easy to keep apart. Taken together the extant data suggest that until the early twentieth century, the qualitate qua meaning was expressed by unto, to and into. If this is correct, then unto, to and into perhaps did not so much express ‘predicatives of becoming’, as Jespersen would have it, but rather predicatives expressing ‘role/capacity’. The qualitate qua meaning was subsequently taken on by as.
We have seen that Visser presented the various predicative prepositions as rivals, and this was certainly the case for unto, to and into which were replaced by as. But was he right that predicative as and for were in competition? Maybe this was the case in earlier centuries, but an alternative way of viewing the later development of these prepositions, i.e. after roughly 1900, would suggest that as and for ceased to be rivals: the former did not replace the latter, but both prepositions were subject to a process of semantic specialisation, such that the qua meaning of for and the qualitate qua meaning of as emerged, and became more distinct. If it is correct that the meanings of unto, into, for and as were less easily distinguishable before the end of the nineteenth century, this would explain why early twentieth-century grammars view for and as as interchangeable. It may still be the case that the decline in use of predicative for was real, as Visser suggested, but quite plausibly it was not due to the perceived rivalry between for and as. A possible way of accounting for it might be that since the early twentieth century the qua meaning of for in English was simply expressed less often: there was less need or opportunity to express it. There is some evidence for this. Thus English had a construction with predicative for that is no longer used. This is the interrogative construction involving what for (OED, s.v. for, P2, c.; Jespersen Reference Jespersen1909–49, IV: 379; Leu Reference Leu2008; van Gelderen Reference Gelderen2021). The earliest examples recorded by the OED and by Jespersen date from the sixteenth century, and the most recent ones from the early twentieth century:
(54) “What is he for a fool that betroths himself to unquietness?” (c. 1598, Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, I.iii)
(55) you know what the Micks are for a rough house? (1914, Jack London The Valley of the Moon; quoted in Jespersen Reference Jespersen1909–49, IV: 379)
(56) How then shall our German industries flourish, if they not protected be? What for a doctrine is that? (1920, Hamilton, The Days before Yesterday; The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA, Davies Reference Davies2010))Footnote 11
However, while the disappearance of the what for-construction entails that predicative for became less frequent, it does not entail that it became obsolescent. In the following sections I will discuss a number of constructions in which the qua and qualitate qua semantics of for and as can be distinguished clearly, pace Jespersen's view that ‘[f]or with a predicative means practically the same thing as as’ (Reference Jespersen1909–49, IV: 376), and I will claim that the existence of these distinct meanings allows both constructions to survive in PDE.
3.2 Predicative ‘for NP’ and ‘as NP’ as adjuncts
Consider the following examples in which the italicised subject-related oblique predicative constructions function as adjuncts:
(57) For a politician, Herzog appears to know quite a bit about Bitcoin, even casually dropping a reference to the cryptocurrency's recent, once-in-four-years halving event in an interview this week. (2020, NOW)
(58) As a politician, Smalls authored state legislation that gave South Carolina the first free and compulsory public school system in the United States. (2021, iWeb)
There is a clear distinction in meaning in cases like these. Example (57) means: ‘considering that he is a politician, …’, whereas (58) means ‘in his role as a politician, …’. We find a similar contrast in (59) and (60):
(59) For a girl who always thought of herself as shy, Talia said the pageant has given her the means to get out of her comfort zone. (2017, iWeb)
(60) As a girl in Munich, Marie was the daughter of teachers and showed artistic talent early on. (2016, iWeb)
Example (59) means ‘considered as a girl who always thought of herself as shy, …’, whereas (60) means: ‘in her identity as a girl in Munich, …’. These observations also explain the following contrasts in which for and as again cannot be interchanged:
(61) For an apartment block this is a really low building.
(62) ?*As an apartment block this is a really low building.
(63) For so young a child this kid is an excellent mathematician.
(64) *As so young a child this kid is an excellent mathematician.
(65) *For a plumber, Mr Lucas wouldn't recommend plastic waste pipes.
(66) As a plumber, Mr Lucas wouldn't recommend waste pipes.
(67) The dog is long-legged for a terrier. (Quirk et al. Reference Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik1985: 711)
(68) *The dog is long-legged as a terrier.
We interpret (61) as ‘considered as an apartment block this is a really low building’, but with as (62) is odd because we are not considering the role of the apartment block.Footnote 12 Similarly, we understand (63) as ‘thought of as being so young a child…’, but (64) is odd when understood as ‘in its identity as so young a child…’. And while (65) is possible with a benefactive reading, it is ungrammatical in the predicative reading. We interpret (66) as ‘in his capacity as a plumber, Mr Lucas wouldn't recommend plastic waste pipes’. Analogous considerations apply to (67) and (68).
Notice that the constructions with as often allow the preposition to be omitted:
(69) (As) a hardworking teacher, Mrs Hollingdon never went home before 6 p.m.
Constructions with for never allow this.
3.3 The construction ‘with (a) X for (a) Y’
In section 3.1 we looked at the lexical preferences that particular verbs have for as or for. In this section I discuss the preference for for in the ‘with (a) X for (a) Y’ construction, exemplified by the following examples:
(70) So Mary moved like the priest of her own beauty, with her dressing-table for altar and her maid for acolyte. (1923, Kaye Smith The End of the House of Alard; quoted in Jespersen Reference Jespersen1909–49, IV: 379)
(71) … over the radio comes an announcement that a crazed killer with a hook for a hand has escaped from the insane asylum. (1992, COCA: MAG)
(72) The bedroom had a twin and a double bed, a dresser, a treadle sewing machine, and a closet with a curtain for a door. (2011, COCA: FIC)
(73) I played cricket regularly on the open grounds beside the cemetery behind Oceanic Hotel – with sticks for stumps, sharing a bat with teammates. (NOW: India)
I found many similar examples – mostly hapaxes, indicating a productive pattern – in the COCA and iWeb corpora. In these constructions the X and Y slots are variable. We can carry over the meaning of ‘for NP’, identified in section 3.1, so that in each case the meaning is: ‘the referent of the predicand is thought of qua NP’. Thus in (70) ‘her dressing-table is thought of qua (‘as being’) an altar’ and ‘her maid is thought of qua (‘as being’) an acolyte’. We also find cases where the predicand is used metaphorically, as in examples like (74)–(76):
(74) A schmendrick with a noodle for a brain. (1951, A. Hirschfeld, Show Business is No Business, 47; quoted in the OED, s.v. for, A, VI, 18, a, (a))
(75) The automated roadway is one of many things spawned by 1991 federal legislation with a mouthful for a name: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, a.k.a. ISTEA, or “ice tea.” (1997, COCA: NEWS)
(76) A few minutes later, with the door closed behind her children, Kiki turned to her husband with a thesis for a face, of which only Howard could know every line and reference. (2005, Zadie Smith, On Beauty)
The preposition as is also possible in (70)–(76), but the meaning then shifts to ‘the referent of the predicand is presented qualitate qua NP’. Thus in (70) with her dressing-table as altar means ‘her dressing-table is thought of in its function as altar’, and with her maid as acolyte means ‘her maid is thought of in her role as an acolyte’. The distinction is especially clear in Jespersen's example she went to the ball with her aunt as chaperon (Reference Jespersen1909–49, IV: 375), i.e. ‘in the role of chaperon’.
In the next section I will discuss a predicative for construction involving a that-clause.
3.4 The construction ‘verb for NP/AdjP that…’
In the following examples the predicand is a that-clause which functions as the extraposed complement of a verb.
(77) He knew for a fact that his father did not see Mr S (1909, Arnold Bennett, Old Wives’ Tale; quoted in Jespersen Reference Jespersen1909–49, IV: 377)
(78) We know for certain that Fleming tracked down Aleister Crowley for advice concerning Hess's interrogation, which prompted Crowley to write to the DNI. (2016, iWeb)
(79) The director takes for granted that this person will be back year after year and do the wonderful job he or she does. (2012, iWeb)
Some speakers insert it into these constructions, although this is infrequent, except for the combination of it and for granted:
(80) “We almost know it for a fact that GM did not want to drop Pontiac. It was from the federal government,” he said. (2010, iWeb)
(81) Anyway, I take it for certain that all use some kind of a cheap plastic lens. (2012, iWeb)
(82) We can no longer take it for granted that the audience will understand classical music much less modern music. (2015, iWeb)
As in the previous section, these examples can be regarded as constructions in which certain slots are relatively fixed – in this case the particular verbs used, namely know and take, the preposition for and the that-clauses – but the content of the that-clauses is variable. The meaning of ‘verb for NP/AdjP that’ can be characterised as follows:
(83) The meaning of ‘verb for NP/AdjP that…’ is: ‘the content of the proposition is verb-ed/-en qua NP/AdjP’.
Example (77) means ‘The proposition that his father did not see Mr S is known qua (‘as being’) a fact’. In other words: ‘He knew this: it was a fact that his father did not see Mr S’. By contrast, the meaning of ‘verb as NP/AdjP that’ can be rendered as follows:
(84) The meaning of ‘verb as NP/AdjP that…’ is: ‘the content of the proposition is verb-ed/-en qualitate qua NP/AdjP’.Footnote 13
If we have as in (77) the meaning changes to ‘He knew this: the proposition that his father did not see Mr S has the status of a fact’. This is perhaps an unusual meaning to communicate, but in other instances of the pattern ‘verb as NP/AdjP that…’ the verb combines felicitously with the qualitate qua meaning of as, as in the following examples:
(85) The Supreme Court upheld the tribunal's jurisdiction to impose such a remedy once it had been established as a fact that women had been systematically discriminated against in the types of jobs at issue. (1990, COCA: ACAD)
(86) The appeal of the argument is that it simply presupposes as a fact that direct national election is more democratic than is direct federal election. (2003, COCA: ACAD)
(87) It is often stated as a fact that South Africa has more Indian people outside of India. (2011, NOW: South Africa)
In these cases the status of the content of the propositions is under consideration. We can paraphrase (85) as ‘the proposition that women had been systematically discriminated against in the types of jobs at issue is established qualitate qua a fact’, (86) as ‘the proposition that direct national election is more democratic than is direct federal election is presupposed qualitate qua a fact’ and (87) as ‘the proposition that South Africa has more Indian people outside of India is stated qualitate qua a fact’.
3.5 Postmodifier ‘for-NPs’
In this section I will discuss a number of productive constructions that contain a ‘for-NP’ phrase which functions as postmodifier. Consider the examples in (88)–(90) below:
(88) [NP Tears for souvenirs] are all you've left me. (Song lyric by Frank Capano, composed by Billy Uhr)
(89) Sometimes nothing beats [NP a warm serving of bread pudding for dessert] … that is, unless you top it with a drizzle of rich caramel and creme anglaise. (2015, LA Times)Footnote 14
(90) Dismissive of facts, starved of coherent arguments and apparently incredulous as to the nature of reality itself – Iain Duncan Smith really is [NP a pathetic excuse for an MP]. (2018, Twitter)
In (88) the bracketed NP in which the for-phrase occurs functions as subject, while in (89) and (90) the bracketed postverbal NPs containing the for-phrase are licensed by the verb as a direct object and as a predicative complement, respectively.Footnote 15
As for the semantics of (88)–(90), each example signals the qua-meaning. This becomes clear when we try to replace for with as. If we had as in (88) this would lead to a different meaning: ‘tears in their capacity as souvenirs’. This meaning does not fit well in the meaning expressed by the overall sentence, which is an existential statement about tears viewed ‘as being’ souvenirs. However, the qualitate qua meaning is not excluded if the sentential context allows it, as in (91):
(91) The removal of rocks as souvenirs is considered taboo. (2016, NOW: Ireland)
In (89) the qualitate qua meaning of a warm serving of bread pudding as dessert is possible, but it would conceptualise the bread pudding in a different way, namely by considering its status as a dessert, rather than its mere existence as a dessert. In (90) we are dealing with an idiom in which for is fixed. There are virtually no examples resulting from a search in mega corpora for the construction ‘adj. excuse as a’. However, I did find an example that occurred as a comment posted on a forum:
(92) [T]his is a pathetic excuse as a story. It had practically no character development what so ever, and the art is also awkwardly rigid, considering how much fighting there is supposed to be. (2013, iWeb)
The context in (92) indicates that what the writer had in mind was the qualitate qua meaning, since they are considering the nature of the story, not its existence, hence as. However, what seems to be happening in this example is that the qualitate qua meaning is blended with the qua meaning of the idiomatic postmodifier construction ‘adj. excuse for a’, discussed above.
4 Conclusion
In this article I discussed the history of prepositions that can take an oblique predicative complement, focusing on for and as. These have often been regarded as interchangeable, with scholars suggesting that by the early twentieth century as became dominant in PDE at the expense of for. I have argued that this account is inaccurate, and that instead of regarding these prepositions as being in competition, they each developed a unique semantics from the early twentieth century onwards which I have characterised as Aristotelian qua (‘as being’) and qualitate qua (‘in its capacity/identity/role’), respectively. Predicative for remains fully productive in English, alongside as, and survives in patterns and constructions that allow the qua meaning.
Open access
