Function of the word before

Outsider said:

Would it not be an adverb in a sentence like «What went before is now forgotten»? (not sure, just wondering)

Like an Angel said:

In the English-Spanish WRD shows it as an adverb, a preposition or a conjunction, so it doesn’t say it’s an adjective, don’t know if something like that happen with others words

Can anyone think of an example of it being an adjective? Perhaps this is his before photo and this is his after photo? I would be tempted here, though, to add a hyphon so «before-photo» which would this still make it an adjective?

Outsider said:

The Merriam Webster’s entry has examples of all grammatical functions. I think it’s an adjective in «the night before» (=»the previous night»).

Oh, right thanks. I didn’t realise that the dictionary was claiming that. It sounds rather suspect to me, to be honest. Doesn’t seem like an adjective at all, not least of all because it follows the noun. If it was «one night before» we couldn’t say «one previous night» it would have to be «a night previously» which would lead me to believe that it’s not an adjective.

Outsider said:

This was my guess. They’re not entirely clear, IMHO.

Normally, that doesn’t happen in English, true, but before is a special word, as we can see from the fact that it has many different functions.

Maybe you’re thinking of cases like:

«A night before we got married…»
«A night before Halloween…»
«A night before New Year’s Eve…»

In the first sentence, «before» is followed by a verb, to which it refers, so I think it’s an adverb.
In the other two sentences, «before» is followed by a noun to which it refers, so I think it’s a preposition.

It’s certainly a tricky case. It’s funny how some words defy traditional grammatical definitions. Maybe this word is something different, something not found in Latin (where English gets its grammatical terms and analysis from) which is why we need to call it so many different things depending on what it is doing.

Outsider said:

«A night before we got married…»
«A night before Halloween…»
«A night before New Year’s Eve…»

In the first sentence, «before» is followed by a verb, to which it refers, so I think it’s an adverb.
In the other two sentences, «before» is followed by a noun to which it refers, so I think it’s a preposition.

In the first case before is a conjunction because it introduces a dependent clause.

timpeac said:

Oh, right thanks. I didn’t realise that the dictionary was claiming that. It sounds rather suspect to me, to be honest. Doesn’t seem like an adjective at all, not least of all because it follows the noun. If it was «one night before» we couldn’t say «one previous night» it would have to be «a night previously» which would lead me to believe that it’s not an adjective.

«A night previously»? That sounds strange to me because you’re using an adverb with a noun.

elroy said:

«A night previously»? That sounds strange to me because you’re using an adverb with a noun.

But that’s quite normal — «a week previously» «a year previously» — isn’t it? We say it in the UK anyway.

Actually I meant to write «one night previously» rather than «a night previously».

timpeac said:

But that’s quite normal — «a week previously» «a year previously» — isn’t it? We say it in the UK anyway.

Actually I meant to write «one night previously» rather than «a night previously».

Hm…I don’t know. It doesn’t sound horrible but what’s wrong with «one night before» or «one night before that»?

Outsider said:

Can you explain that with an example?

«Before we got married» is a dependent clause. It is a clause because it has a subject and a verb. It is a dependent clause because it cannot stand alone as a sentence. Dependent clauses can be divided into three categories: noun clauses, adjective clauses, and adverb clauses. Noun clauses are introduced by «that,» «whether,» or «if,» which are just called «introductory correlatives» or something. Adjective clauses are introduced by «relatives» (pronouns or adverbs) such as «that,» «which,» etc. Adverb clauses are introduced by subordinating conjunctions. «Before we got married» is an adverb clause because it indicates WHEN something happened. «Before» is the subordinating conjunction that introduces that clause. Now, looking at the example in question, it is hard to analyze it because it is not a complete sentence. An example sentence might read

On a night before we got married, I read my lover a poem.

In this sentence, both «on a night» and «before we got married» function as adverbs. «On a night» is an adverb phrase; «before we got married» an adverb clause. Nevertheless, the structure is slightly off grammatically because it appears as though the «before» clause were an adjective clause modifying «night.» This vagueness could be cleared up by saying something like «On a night that took place before we got married…» Although that does sound a bit stiff, the adverb clause clearly modifies the «took place» («That took place» is an adjective clause modifying «night.»)

Further examples.

Before you speak to me, you need to finish your work.
I was very out of shape before I began exercising.
It was almost dawn before I finally got a phone call from her.

I hope it’s clearer now.

elroy said:

Hm…I don’t know. It doesn’t sound horrible but what’s wrong with «one night before» or «one night before that»?

Nothing at all, but I was just trying to think of a synonymous phrase which might highlight which function «before» is serving in the sentece, «previously» seemed to make it most clear.

timpeac said:

Nothing at all, but I was just trying to think of a synonymous phrase which might highlight which function «before» is serving in the sentece, «previously» seemed to make it most clear.

Oh, I see. I misunderstood what you were saying. How can it be an adverb, though, when it’s modifying a noun? I actually don’t think «one previous night» is incorrect, and would given reason to classify «before» as an adjective. Do you think «one previous night» is entirely incorrect?

elroy said:

Oh, I see. I misunderstood what you were saying. How can it be an adverb, though, when it’s modifying a noun? I actually don’t think «one previous night» is incorrect, and would given reason to classify «before» as an adjective. Do you think «one previous night» is entirely incorrect?

Meaning 24 hours before the time we are talking about? Yes, I would have to say «one previous night» is completely wrong. I haven’t heard it, anyway, which I suppose is ultimately all I can judge it on!

Benjy said:

would anyone mind if i moved this back into the english only forum until we can all agree on what before is?

Or before we can all agree on what it is, anyway!

timpeac said:

Meaning 24 hours before the time we are talking about? Yes, I would have to say «one previous night» is completely wrong. I haven’t heard it, anyway, which I suppose is ultimately all I can judge it on!

No, just to mean «one night before…» As in, maybe 2 nights ago, maybe 9, maybe 3 weeks, and maybe two decades…

elroy said:

No, just to mean «one night before…» As in, maybe 2 nights ago, maybe 9, maybe 3 weeks, and maybe two decades…

Oh, Ok. I still have to say that even in that context «one previous night» sounds very odd to me.

However, in both of «one night before» «one night previously» that sounds to me like we’re talking about the previous 24 hours rather than some night in the past. In fact that is how I would express that «some night before» «some night previously». Indeed «some previous night» sounds more acceptable than «one previous night», but still not good to me.

timpeac said:

Oh, Ok. I still have to say that even in that context «one previous night» sounds very odd to me.

However, in both of «one night before» «one night previously» that sounds to me like we’re talking about the previous 24 hours rather than some night in the past. In fact that is how I would express that «some night before» «some night previously». Indeed «some previous night» sounds more acceptable than «one previous night», but still not good to me.

Ok, you’re right. I think I’m mixing things up a little. «One (some/a) previous night» is possible, but not with the meaning «24 hours before.» That would be, as you said, «one night before» or «one night previously.» Nevertheless, that doesn’t answer the question of how «previously» can be an adverb while modifying a noun. It seems to be an adverb form taking on an adjectival function (if that’s possible)…or maybe it’s an ellipsis (one night that occurred previously)…

Either way, it doesn’t seem that «before» in «one night before» is an adverb…

elroy said:

Ok, you’re right. I think I’m mixing things up a little. «One (some/a) previous night» is possible, but not with the meaning «24 hours before.» That would be, as you said, «one night before» or «one night previously.» Nevertheless, that doesn’t answer the question of how «previously» can be an adverb while modifying a noun. It seems to be an adverb form taking on an adjectival function (if that’s possible)…or maybe it’s an ellipsis (one night that occurred previously)…

Either way, it doesn’t seem that «before» in «one night before» is an adverb…

This is my whole argument. I am saying that it seems to me that «previously» is an adverb, as can be seen by both its form (-ly) and usage in the fact that we can contrast the adjectival form «previous» in its normal preceding position, and since the usage of «previously» = the usage of «before» here it follows that «before» is an adverb.

You are saying that because «before» is an adjective and it equals «previously» here «previously» must be an adjective. However, although I agree the two are effectively equal here, I think that «previously» is an adverb for the reasons I give above.

I think the reason that an adverb is used with a noun here is that the noun is a period of time and this is an adverb of time, the whole thing forming an adverbial phrase (of time). You would agree that «two hours previously/before» is different from «a car previously/before». In fact, the only way that «a car previously/before» could make sense is if we interpret this noun as representing a period of time. For example «nowadays he drives a Mercedes. Two cars previously he was driving a pick-up and as poor as a chuch mouse». Here previously is not describing the noun «two cars», the whole phrase «two cars previously» is an adverbial phrase of time used with the verb «driving».

To make it even clearer, «an hour previously/before» seems clearly not to be an noun plus an adjective. «a former hour» is clearly not meant. This is a whole adverbial phrase in its own right.

timpeac said:

This is my whole argument. I am saying that it seems to me that «previously» is an adverb, as can be seen by both its form (-ly) and usage in the fact that we can contrast the adjectival form «previous» in its normal preceding position, and since the usage of «previously» = the usage of «before» here it follows that «before» is an adverb.

You are saying that because «before» is an adjective and it equals «previously» here «previously» must be an adjective. However, although I agree the two are effectively equal here, I think that «previously» is an adverb for the reasons I give above.

I think the reason that an adverb is used with a noun here is that the noun is a period of time and this is an adverb of time, the whole thing forming an adverbial phrase (of time). You would agree that «two hours previously/before» is different from «a car previously/before». In fact, the only way that «a car previously/before» could make sense is if we interpret this noun as representing a period of time. For example «nowadays he drives a Mercedes. Two cars previously he was driving a pick-up and as poor as a chuch mouse». Here previously is not describing the noun «two cars», the whole phrase «two cars previously» is an adverbial phrase of time used with the verb «driving».

To make it even clearer, «an hour previously/before» seems clearly not to be an noun plus an adjective. «a former hour» is clearly not meant. This is a whole adverbial phrase in its own right.

Ok, I do follow what you’re saying. «The night before/previously» could be considered a noun phrase functioning as an adverb, because it indicates time. However, within the noun phrase the individual elements need to be dissected and analyzed. «Night» is a noun, whether or not it refers to time, and therefore can ONLY take an adjective as a modifier. «Previously» seems to be modifying «night,» but is normally an adverb, as you state. (By the way, the only convincing reason is the comparison with the adjective «previous»; the ending «-ly» can be found in adjectives [friendly, stately, etc.]). Which is what leads me to my dilemma. I did not say that «previously» was an adjective (that sounds downright laughable!) but that it seemed to be an adverb taking on an adjectival function. Do you see what I’m trying to say? Just because the whole phrase is functioning adverbially doesn’t mean each element within is an adverb.

elroy said:

Ok, I do follow what you’re saying. «The night before/previously» could be considered a noun phrase functioning as an adverb, because it indicates time. However, within the noun phrase the individual elements need to be dissected and analyzed. «Night» is a noun, whether or not it refers to time, and therefore can ONLY take an adjective as a modifier. «Previously» seems to be modifying «night,» but is normally an adverb, as you state. (By the way, the only convincing reason is the comparison with the adjective «previous»; the ending «-ly» can be found in adjectives [friendly, stately, etc.]). Which is what leads me to my dilemma. I did not say that «previously» was an adjective (that sounds downright laughable!) but that it seemed to be an adverb taking on an adjectival function. Do you see what I’m trying to say? Just because the whole phrase is functioning adverbially doesn’t mean each element within is an adverb.

Yes, Elroy, I do see what you mean (I agree the -ly ending is a weak argument, the real argument is as you say in the comparison with the true adjective previous). This is a really perplexing case! Are you sure that a noun can only be modified by an adjective? For example the phrases —

One night before you came
One night previously

would suggest, functionally speaking, that «before you came» = «previously» and so «before you came» is describing «night». So perhaps this argument comes down to classification of terms. If we define an adjective as anything which describes a noun then any phrase can take on an adjectival function.

<<calender pages fall, dictionary pages flutter, google search engines whirr>>

Having done some research just now on the definition of an adjective, I think that what we have here is an «adjectival phrase». This is most clearly seen in the «before you came» above, but would suggest to me that «previously» here is a one word «adjectival phrase», and thus different from an adjective (as shown in the pair «one previous night» and «one night previously»). How about that?

timpeac said:

Yes, Elroy, I do see what you mean (I agree the -ly ending is a weak argument, the real argument is as you say in the comparison with the true adjective previous). This is a really perplexing case! Are you sure that a noun can only be modified by an adjective? For example the phrases —

One night before you came
One night previously

would suggest, functionally speaking, that «before you came» = «previously» and so «before you came» is describing «night». So perhaps this argument comes down to classification of terms. If we define an adjective as anything which describes a noun then any phrase can take on an adjectival function.

<<calender pages fall, dictionary pages flutter, google search engines whirr>>

Having done some research just now on the definition of an adjective, I think that what we have here is an «adjectival phrase». This is most clearly seen in the «before you came» above, but would suggest to me that «previously» here is a one word «adjectival phrase», and thus different from an adjective (as shown in the pair «one previous night» and «one night previously»). How about that?

Ok, maybe. Whether we call it an adjective or an adjectival phrase is irrelevant; the point is that it is functioning «adjectivally» — and that’s what I was trying to get at.

About «before you came,» though, I have trouble classifying that as an adjective phrase. First of all, grammatically speaking, it is a clause — so if antyhing it would be an adjective clause. However, adjective clauses are introducted by relatives and adverb clauses are introduced by subordinating conjunctions (which is what «before» would be in this case). But that brings up back to square one. Is this an «adverb clause» functioning as an «adjective» (an «adjectival adverb clause»????!!!!) In an earlier post I suggested that it might be an adverb clause modifying whatever the verb of the sentence is. «On a night before you came, I got sick.» (Both «on a night» and «before you came» would modify «got» by telling us when.) That explanation may be grammatically sound, but doesn’t eliminate the confusion that results from the fact that «before you came» seems to be modifying «night.» That’s why it could be an ellipsis, as I also suggested («on a night [that took place] before you came»).

What do you think about all of this?

elroy said:

Ok, maybe. Whether we call it an adjective or an adjectival phrase is irrelevant; the point is that it is functioning «adjectivally» — and that’s what I was trying to get at.

About «before you came,» though, I have trouble classifying that as an adjective phrase. First of all, grammatically speaking, it is a clause — so if antyhing it would be an adjective clause. However, adjective clauses are introducted by relatives and adverb clauses are introduced by subordinating conjunctions (which is what «before» would be in this case). But that brings up back to square one. Is this an «adverb clause» functioning as an «adjective» (an «adjectival adverb clause»????!!!!) In an earlier post I suggested that it might be an adverb clause modifying whatever the verb of the sentence is. «On a night before you came, I got sick.» (Both «on a night» and «before you came» would modify «got» by telling us when.) That explanation may be grammatically sound, but doesn’t eliminate the confusion that results from the fact that «before you came» seems to be modifying «night.» That’s why it could be an ellipsis, as I also suggested («on a night [that took place] before you came»).

What do you think about all of this?

It sounds like you are more clued up than me on the technical jargon here, but if this is an adverbial clause then «adjectival adverb clause» would have to fit it seems. This would satisfy my belief that the modifier is an adverbial phrase (ok clause!) and your belief that something that modifies a noun must be an adjective.

Everyone wins, no?

By the way, I’m not sure that claiming ellipsis helps. I have no doubt that this is an ellipsis as you say, but if we start considering what may or may not have been left out this is going to get even more horribly complicated. For example, «that took place before you came» would then be describing the night, and this starts with «that» which is a relative and therfore fulfils your criteria for an adjectival phrase once again, and so the circle eats itself once more!

timpeac said:

It sounds like you are more clued up than me on the technical jargon here, but if this is an adverbial clause then «adjectival adverb clause» would have to fit it seems. This would satisfy my belief that the modifier is an adverbial phrase (ok clause!) and your belief that something that modifies a noun must be an adjective.

Everyone wins, no?

Haha, see the thing is «adjectival adverb clause» is something I’ve never heard of, and I’m not sure it exists. Hence my reservations.

By the way, I’m not sure that claiming ellipsis helps. I have no doubt that this is an ellipsis as you say, but if we start considering what may or may not have been left out this is going to get even more horribly complicated. For example, «that took place before you came» would then be describing the night, and this starts with «that» which is a relative and therfore fulfils your criteria for an adjectival phrase once again, and so the circle eats itself once more!

Well, yes. In that case the grammatical structure would be clear. «On a night that took place before you came» would be the complete adverb phrase, within which «that took place before you came» is an adjective clause modifying «night,» within which «before you came» is an adverb clause modifying «took place.» The whole phrase, in turn, would modify the verb of the sentence. Claiming ellipsis doesn’t actually complicate things but rather assigns unambiguous roles to every element of the sentence without contradicting any of our previous ideas.

timpeac said:

Let’s do that then, because I for one am out of further ideas on this one now.

Fair enough.

Let’s end it here before it gets out of hand!

I hope I’m not taking you back to something you’ve already said. I did read all the discussion between Tim and elroy but I was somewhat confused by a few very long posts and I’m not sure I didn’t miss something.

Let’s consider these two phrases
1. The night before
2. A high wall with a field behind

I’m convinced that «before» and «behind» have exactly the same function in 1. and 2. I don’t think they can be anything but adverbs, both of them.
I really don’t see how «before» could be an adjective.

Now, would you answer a question from the non-native I am ?
It was made (almost) clear that before could be a preposition, a conjunction and an adverb. Now I’d like to make a comparison with «after».

A1. before the gold rush (preposition)
A2. He told me before I had to ask (conjunction)
A3. Why didn’t you tell me before ? (adverb)

B1. after the gold rush
B2. He only arrived after we’d finished
B3. I’ll tell you after

What do you think ? I think that, unlike «before», «after» cannot be used as an adverb.
I feel you’d have to say either :
I’ll tell you afterwards or
I’ll tell you later

LV4-26 said:

I hope I’m not taking you back to something you’ve already said. I did read all the discussion between Tim and elroy but I was somewhat confused by a few very long posts and I’m not sure I didn’t miss something.

Let’s consider these two phrases
1. The night before
2. A high wall with a field behind

I’m convinced that «before» and «behind» have exactly the same function in 1. and 2. I don’t think they can be anything but adverbs, both of them.
I really don’t see how «before» could be an adjective.

Now, would you answer a question from the non-native I am ?
It was made (almost) clear that before could be a preposition, a conjunction and an adverb. Now I’d like to make a comparison with «after».

A1. before the gold rush (preposition)
A2. He told me before I had to ask (conjunction)
A3. Why didn’t you tell me before ? (adverb)

B1. after the gold rush
B2. He only arrived after we’d finished
B3. I’ll tell you after

What do you think ? I think that, unlike «before», «after» cannot be used as an adverb.
I feel you’d have to say either :
I’ll tell you afterwards or
I’ll tell you later

How can «before» in «the night before» be an adverb if it’s modifying a noun? That’s the fundamental question.

You are totally right about «after.»

elroy said:

How can «before» in «the night before» be an adverb if it’s modifying a noun? That’s the fundamental question.

Right. Would you agree that «behind» in example #2. must be the same part of speech as «before» in #1. ?

Phrase #2 was taken from my COD, in the paragraph concerning «behind» as an adverb. Can an adverb never modify a noun ? I’ve seen that adverbs are used to modify words, especially (i.e. not exclusively) adjectives, verbs or other adverbs.

ADVERBS MODIFYING NOUNS

Adverbs can modify nouns to indicate time or place.

EG: The concert tomorrow

EG: The room upstairs

(UsingEnglish.com)
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/adverb.html

NB : I’m not saying that those people are necessarily right. I just wanted to point out that there are people who think that adverbs can occasionally modify nouns. So as to «feed your/our thinking» *. I have no definite opinion on the matter myself.

* I’m sure this isn’t English but I hope you understand what I mean.

Outsider said:

I disagree. I think behind is a preposition in the second sentence. It connects two nouns. In the first sentence, before refers to a single noun.

The Merriam Webster agrees that behind can be a preposition, and gives the following examples:

the conditions behind the strike;
the story behind the story

which I find perfectly analogous to your sentence 2.

I’m sure you have noticed that in my (that is, Oxford’s) example
a wall with a field behind.
there’s no noun following «behind».

Yet, I tend to agree with you here.
We could very well have an elliptic prepositional phrase here., i.e. a PP deprived of its NP and reduced to its preposition.
a wall with a field behind = with a field behind [the wall]

But then we’d have to admit that my COD is wrong eek: ) when quoting this phrase as an illustration of the use of «behind» as an adverb.

LV4-26 said:

(UsingEnglish.com)
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/adverb.html

NB : I’m not saying that those people are necessarily right. I just wanted to point out that there are people who think that adverbs can occasionally modify nouns. So as to «feed your/our thinking» *. I have no definite opinion on the matter myself.

* I’m sure this isn’t English but I hope you understand what I mean.

This is very interesting. In my thirteen years of education at an American school, I was never ever taught that a adverb could modify a noun. That said, I would personally classify the words in your examples as adjectives. English words are famous for their versatility and ability to function as various parts of speech. In this case, we have words that normally function as adverbs functioning as adjectives.

Outsider said:

What if I turn that example into the following?

‘When did you read your lover the poem?’
‘The night before we got married.’

(I agree that ‘before’ is a conjunction in the other three examples you wrote.)

I think there would be an ellipsis there.

When did you read your lover the poem?
(On) the night before (the night on which) we got married.

in which case «before» would be a preposition governing «night.»

Outsider said:

Does the noun have to follow the preposition? English is famous for placing prepositions at the end of sentences.

Or perhaps: a wall with a field behind = a wall with a field behind [it].

The noun does not have to follow the preposition, but it has to be there, somewhere in the sentence. In this case, if you are to identify «behind» as a preposition, there HAS to be a noun — at the very least as an ellipsis.

Outsider said:

Yes, but it does not «follow» (figuratively) the preposition. That is, even if you mixed the word order around, «wall» does not go with «behind.»

a wall with a field behind DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME AS with a field behind a wall or behind a wall with a field

However, when you say something like:

A strawberry tart is what I asked for.

You can switch it to

A strawberry tart is for what I asked.

Although the second sentence sounds awkward — and possibly incorrect — it means the same thing and helps elucidate what the object of the preposition is.

Outsider said:

Yes, I think you’re right. The way to analyse it must be as an ellision, a wall with a field behind (it). In any case, behind is still a preposition, here.

If we go with the ellipsis, then without a doubt. Otherwise,…I don’t know.

Or perhaps «For a strawberry tart [pie?] is what I asked»…

Hm…not really. «Asked for» is a phrasal verb so the two words have to go together grammatically. That’s why we say «A strawberry tart is what I asked for.» «A strawberry tart is for what I asked» still does not violate the «phrasality» of the verb because you’re just switching the word order around within the same phrase («what I asked for»/»for what I asked»). However, when you isolate «ask» (…»is what I asked»), then the implication is that you are asking a question. I would expect something like «A silly question is what I asked» — not «for a strawberry tart.» At any rate, that’s not important. I think the principle idea has already been shown.

Finally, «tart» does mean «pie,» kind of. (It has another very negative meaning, though, so perhaps I should have said «pie»! )

elroy said:

A strawberry tart is what I asked for.

Another way to analyze this:

What did I ask for? [For what did I ask?] A stawberry tart.

This also emphasizes how ridiculous the «no prepostion at the ned of a sentence rule» is.

Gaer

Outsider said:

I disagree. I think behind is a preposition in the second sentence. It connects two nouns. In the first sentence, before refers to a single noun.

The Merriam Webster agrees that behind can be a preposition, and gives the following examples:

the conditions behind the strike;
the story behind the story

which I find perfectly analogous to your sentence 2.

I’m late reading this thread. The only thing I am sure of is that I almost have a headache trying to follow the logic. I’m serious.

The only thing I agree strongly with is this:

«A high wall with a field behind it.»

I do believe that the final pronoun is omitted but understood. So I would agree that «behind» is a preposition here.

But these bother me:

the conditions behind the strike;
the story behind the story

I don’t think «behind» is a preposition at all. I think words have been omitted

the conditions that are behind the strike.
the story

that is

behind the story.

After all, what about these:

The cat [who/that is] under the table.

The rainbow [that is] in the sky.

As for classifying «before», there are so many ways of looking at the function of this word.

The night before, to me, is the same as:

«The night that came before it.»

I think we are dealing with «shortcuts», staccato ways of expressing ideas that logically should use more words but that are universally understood withou them. Inventing new classifications for such words (or usages) to me seems more difficult than learning to use English correctly. The terms start becoming more important that the language.

Adjectives that modify nouns? I think this is the point at which grammar becomes something very stupid, a handicap rather than an aid.

Gaer

gaer said:

Another way to analyze this:

What did I ask for? [For what did I ask?] A stawberry tart.

This also emphasizes how ridiculous the «no prepostion at the ned of a sentence rule» is.

Gaer

Yes.

The point of this exercise was to show that «for» has a visible, incontrovertible object in this sentence = «what.»