# I want for you to / I want you to



## Imza

Calling all anglophones!... or others but I think this is a pretty "anglophone-y" problem I have.

I'm an English teacher in France and one of my English students recently outlined that I often say "*I want for you to *concentrate on....." and asked if it was correct. 
So I ummed and ahhed. The more I thought about it the more I doubted. The construction _should_ be: *want  somebody to do something*... SO no preposition. But is what I am saying acceptable?! 

I think I've derived it from the structure "I *would like for you to *do something".... But now I'm beginning to wonder if that is even correct. I know _I_ say it all the time (and so does everyone in my family, but I've learnt the hard way that they have handed me down some funny things that are frowned upon by linguists!) but I can't find any books that back me up! Am I alone? Is it a common mistake or have I made it up myself?

I would really appreciate any feedback because it's pretty bad being caught out on something so simple, especially when I say it in all my classes!... That and the fact that I'm being inspected soon and I don't want to be worrying about whether or not it's going to slip out!


----------



## lacp

I think it would better to say 'I want you to concentrate on...'.  I have heard people say 'I would like for you to ...' but I don't think I would use it myself.


----------



## Oddmania

I've always been taught *Someone wants someone else to do something*.

_I want to you tell me_... , _He would like her to do this_, etc...

But, who knows, maybe add _for_ is also correct, I won't be able to answer exactly


----------



## jann

My first reaction is that "I want for you to do X" is not grammatical.  I should be "I want you to do X." Strangely, "I would like for you to do X" does not bother me as much -- but I'm not convinced it's grammatical either.

On reflection, I realize that these structures may (perhaps?) just be archaic, instead of actually incorrect.

Native speakers make all sorts of mistakes all the time -- some of which don't even sound "wrong" any more -- so don't agonize over it.  Regardless, it's probably a good idea to teach your students the standard structure, without the word "for," lest they be penalized for it later on English exams. 

EDIT: this page indicates that structures in this category are "debatable," and "assumes" that the word _for_ can be inserted, but provides no futher explanation or justification.  And this paper (if you can access it) provides some analysis of structures with for & to.


----------



## panjandrum

It doesn't make sense (to me) to use "want for" in this context: "want for" has another use.  If I want for something I am suffering from the lack of this thing, but the most familiar use is to "want for nothing", meaning _to have no lack of any of the necessaries or comforts of life (OED).
_
I can't think of any reason to add for in "I would like for you to ..." either, but I believe it is used by some and is a natural part of their English.


----------



## ml57

To me both *want for* and *like for* sound wrong; to *want for* means to lack, so it sets your parser off in the wrong direction, especially in writing.

I wonder, though, if it might be regional dialect? What part of the country do your parents come from?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

jann said:


> [...]EDIT: this page indicates that structures in this category are "debatable," and "assumes" that the word _for_ can be inserted, but provides no futher explanation or justification.


 
You know, Jann, I couldn't see that your page 'assumes' that the word 'for' can be inserted. 

I wonder a little about how seriously we should take a teacher who gives as an example _for him to walk in the superstitions is fine_.

Certainly we can say _for him to do something is fine_, or _it's fine for him to do something (_I always hesitate to have much to do with people who walk in the superstitions), but not, in my view, _I want for you to do something_ or _I would like for you to do something._

For me, it must be_ I want you to do etc.._ or _I would like you to do etc.._


----------



## pattyredd

panjandrum said:


> It doesn't make sense (to me) to use "want for" in this context: "want for" has another use. If I want for something I am suffering from the lack of this thing, but the most familiar use is to "want for nothing", meaning _to have no lack of any of the necessaries or comforts of life (OED)._
> 
> I can't think of any reason to add for in "I would like for you to ..." either, but I believe it is used by some and is a natural part of their English.


 

I agree with Panjandrum.
to want for = lacking something

in the context you are referring you (I'm guessing getting your student to focus on work or a specific topic) you would want to use "I want you to...."
get rid of the for, and just explain to them that it is accurate, but not under this context 

Good luck


----------



## Llohr

The preposition for is generally used to identify an indirect object, while something that you "want" is going to be the direct object of the verb to want. There are exceptions, but this construction is ungrammatical in the various English grammar systems of which I am aware. 

"Would like for" is a construction which generally turns up in polite speech. The use of the conditional "would" is, in several languages, considered a polite way to ask for something, and adding in the "for" is probably felt, by a speaker who uses it, to further "soften" the request. I would not call its use grammatically correct, but it is fairly common--more so, I think, in TUKOGBANI than in the States.

I cannot help but wonder if this usage stems from an ESL group whose native language linked the word for "like" with the preposition closest to "for" and simply caught on amongst the native speakers.


----------



## cuchuflete

The preposition is extraneous.  It doesn't add meaning.  Be rid of it.


----------



## Loob

Llohr said:


> "Would like for" is a construction which generally turns up in polite speech. The use of the conditional "would" is, in several languages, considered a polite way to ask for something, and adding in the "for" is probably felt, by a speaker who uses it, to further "soften" the request. I would not call its use grammatically correct, but it is fairly common--more so, I think, in TUKOGBANI than in the States.


It's fascinating how perceptions differ - assuming, that is, that the exotic-looking 'TUKOGBANI' refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I'm pretty sure I've heard AmE speakers inserting "for" after "would like" (as in this thread); I'm equally sure I haven't heard BrE speakers doing it....

As for "I want for you to do X", I'd have put this down as AmE too. You live and learn!


----------



## jann

Thomas Tompion said:


> You know, Jann, I couldn't see that your page 'assumes' that the word 'for' can be inserted.


I was referring to the following spot, which appears below the sentence diagram it describes (my bold).  You should be able to locate it with a search in the page: 


> This means that I *assume* an empty complementizer which can be filled by _for_    in a number of cases such as (18):
> 18.       I want for you to    do your homework.


I'm not arguing for inclusion of the word "for."  On the contrary, I prefer the sentences without it.  I was just looking for some documentation or discussion of this structure...


----------



## entangledbank

It's non-standard, though quite common dialectally and historically. It is in fact a regular construction: normally the subordinator 'for' marks the subject of an infinitive clause:

We agitated for Mary to speak first.
There is still time for Mary to arrive.
For Mary to leave now would be impractical.

However, when directly following a previous verb, this is not always so. It is for 'agitate', but not for 'want' or 'expect' or 'persuade':

We expected (*for) Mary to arrive soon.

Arguably, with these verbs the intermediate noun phrase (here, 'Mary') is not subject of the infinitive but object of the first verb. I am not wholly persuaded of this myself.


----------



## ewie

entangledbank said:


> quite common dialectally


My little old granny (born Lancashire, 1907) used to say it.  I might even say it myself ~ I'll have to listen out.  The more I read it the more familiar it sounds so maybe I _still _hear folk saying it.



Loob said:


> 'TUKOGBANI' refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland


Thanks for the translation, Mrs.L ~ you saved me a question.


----------



## geostan

In my opinion, _I want for someone to do something _is simply wrong. There is absolutely no need for the preposition. Is it used by some native speakers? Undoubtedly, but I cringe when I hear it.


----------



## Llohr

Loob said:


> I'm pretty sure I've heard AmE speakers inserting "for" after "would like" (as in this thread); I'm equally sure I haven't heard BrE speakers doing it....
> 
> As for "I want for you to do X", I'd have put this down as AmE too. You live and learn!




Well, I should probably point out that my assumptions are based entirely upon literature as opposed to spoken examples. I am fairly certain that the only time I have actually heard the phrase "would like for" used, it was spoken by non-native English speaker. I had guessed that it was both an archaic formality (and/or literary formulation) in British English and a common error of ESL speakers. 

It is also possible that speakers of other American dialects use it (clearly at least one American English speaker felt it was correct in the thread you linked) given that I don't travel much.

I would humbly suggest that it be omitted whenever possible, but some instances, such as the example given in the other thread: *"I would like very much for you to attend the ceremony" *seem to require it, though a slight rewording would alleviate the need. Again, this seems to be an example of trying to squeeze as much politeness as possible into the "request." 

The more I consider it, the more it seems that the for can become "necessary" for some verbs in certain constructions. For instance, in the bold example above, substituting "want" for "would like" remains clearly ungrammatical without the for. Sure, one can avoid such constructions as a general rule and render it unnecessary, but editing is difficult when the words are already out of your mouth


----------



## Imza

Thank you all for your feedback... After reading all your helpful feedback I guess that I will try to avouid it from now on, but as some of you said it had this "extra-polite" feel to it,... oh and Granny said it too!

It's reassuring to kow that I'm not the only one, but don't worry I'm mending my ways!

Thanks again!


----------



## Loob

Just a postscript: you might be interested in this thread, Imza:
My boss doesn't like me to be late for work


----------



## Imza

Loob said:


> Just a postscript: you might be interested in this thread, Imza:
> My boss doesn't like me to be late for work



You hit the nail on the head with that link! I was sooo glad to see someone else who thinks like me (: ahhh how reassuring!). Thanks for that! Because for me that was just it: I would like <an object> but I would like _for_ <sb to do sth>. This is where my problem stemmed from... 

Well seeing the "problem" is the first step to fixing it, right? Now I juuust have to get it out of my everyday language... This may take a while!


----------



## Loob

Well, it's up to you, Imza

I don't _*particularly*_ see the need for you to excise it from your everyday language - provided you explain that some people like it and others don't....


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It sounds very affected to me, Loobo.


----------



## Imza

ml57 said:


> To me both *want for* and *like for* sound wrong; to *want for* means to lack, so it sets your parser off in the wrong direction, especially in writing.
> 
> I wonder, though, if it might be regional dialect? What part of the country do your parents come from?


 
My mum's from Bristol and my step dad's from Preston. But genereally I'm more influenced by my Mum's speach... Or so it would sound . But I asked my Bristolian Grandma who said "hmmm... no. No 'for'." and who I have since heard using it too... She obviously doesn't notice it!

 But, having said all this, I heard it said repeatedly in an American film a couple of weeks back. Could this be the source? Could it be American?


----------



## HnB'ed

As a continuing learner of English, I oftentimes came across "want for/expect for/would like for/say for" in the International Herald Tribune comic section. It's actually done on purpose by American scriptwriters to give a dialectal and/or casual feel to their characters, just like the use of informal contractions and expressions including ain't, gonna, wanna, gotcha, kinda, sorta, uh, you guys/folks, and so forth.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Llohr said:


> Well, I should probably point out that my assumptions are based entirely upon literature as opposed to spoken examples. I am fairly certain that the only time I have actually heard the phrase "would like for" used, it was spoken by non-native English speaker. I had guessed that it was both an archaic formality (and/or literary formulation) in British English and a common error of ESL speakers.
> 
> It is also possible that speakers of other American dialects use it (clearly at least one American English speaker felt it was correct in the thread you linked) given that I don't travel much.



I don't consider it to be an unusual phrase.


----------



## Madrid001

<< Moderator's note: 
This question has been added to a previous thread.  Please read from the top. >>

Hello!


Can you please tell me if these two sentences are correct?

- I only want for her to be happy

- I only want her to be happy 


Also

- I want you to go to the grocery store

- I want for you to go to the grocery store


Thank you!


----------



## figgles

Madrid001 said:


> Hello!
> 
> 
> Can you please tell me if these two sentences are correct?
> 
> - I only want for her to be happy  [very sentimental, formal]
> 
> - I only want her to be happy  [common]
> 
> 
> Also
> 
> - I want you to go to the grocery store  [common]
> 
> - I want for you to go to the grocery store  [very sentimental, formal]
> 
> 
> Thank you!



HOWEVER:

"I want for you to go to the grocery store" is correct, but it is extremely formal if requesting something. It is more likely to be understood as: "It would make me happy if you went to the grocery store".

It is usually used to express unselfish dreams, hopes, wishes:
"I want for you _<something nice>_"
"I want for you to (be able to) go to college [some day, but you can't right now]"
"I want for you a better life than I had."

Compare to:
"I want you to go to college" -- which can be nice ("I want you to have an education.") or mean ("Leave now!")

I hope that helps. If I am not clear, please let me know!


----------



## Madrid001

Thank you so much for your help. It's much clearer now.


----------



## se16teddy

Madrid001 said:


> - I only want for her to be happy
> - I want for you to go to the grocery store


I am familiar with these forms from North American films and friends.


----------



## Bevj

se16teddy said:


> I am familiar with these forms from North American films and friends.



I'm afraid that they sound odd to me, like an over-literal translation from Spanish.
I think that as se16teddy says, this must be an AE usage rather than a BrE one.


----------



## JustKate

Neither one of the "for" sentences sounds quite right to me (and note that I am an AmE speaker). "All I want is for her to be happy" sounds fine, but "I only want for her to be happy" does not work for me at all. I can't explain why, but the _for_ seems awkward and unnatural there. "I want for her to go to the grocery store" sounds just as odd. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it isn't something I can imagine using very often, if at all.


----------



## owlman5

"For" looks needless to me in those sentences, teddy and Bevj, so I'm not sure that its use is widespread or universally accepted over here. 



> I only want for her to be happy


I'm pretty sure I've heard sentences like this in the speech of fluent AE-speakers.  "I only want her to be happy" seems just as likely to me in AE.



> I want for you to go to the grocery store


This one seems odd to me.  I don't hear any of my friends and neighbors throwing in a needless "for" in this kind of sentence.

I sure don't see anything sentimental or formal about the needless use of "for" in Madrid's examples.  I'm not sure where that idea came from, but it seems unlikely to me.

cross-posted with Kate


----------



## sdgraham

When I was a working editor and not just a retired curmudgeon, a wordy "want for" meaning "desire" did not escape my red editing pen and neither did the writer of such wordiness want for a bit of constructive criticism.


----------



## Cagey

<< Moderator's note: I have added this discussion (which begins at post #25) to an earlier thread.  
Please scroll up and read from the top. 

Cagey, moderator >>


----------



## ewie

As I said in post #14 above, these forms don't sound at all unusual to me: I'm sure they're regional/dialectal in BrE


----------



## Melrosse

<Moderator note: Melrosse's thread has been merged with an earlier one. Nat>

I heard it through a TV series "New Girl":
1."I want for you to be happy."
2. " I want for you to love me."
3. " All I want for you is to be successful."

Are those sentences grammatically correct? Could I use this pattern myself?


----------



## rhitagawr

It's _I want you to be happy_ and _I want you to love me_. The third sentence isn't brilliant, although you could probably get away with it. You'd be more likely to say _All I want is for you to be successful_.


----------



## quillerbee

I agree that "I want you to be happy" is good. "I want you to love me" is correct but needy 

I think that #3 is fine. "All I want for you is to be successful." This means that you wish them success, but are less concerned about other things such as happiness.

_All I want is for you to be successful_. While this could be used in the same context, it has a subtly different meaning. It's more than "All I want for you", it's "All I want (in the whole world)". It could be taken to mean that you have no interest in your own success, health, or happiness.


----------



## suzi br

Is this another AE / BE difference?  I am not sure if Americans think 1 and 2 are OK, but to me, as a Brit, they sound wrong. 
I would either cut them down (as rhitagawr suggests) or add some of the verb to be somewhere in # 1 and #2: 
All I want IS for you to ...


----------



## quillerbee

I agree with the BE's, in the original form, 1 and 2 are wrong. To me, it should be "I want you to be happy". Again, "all I want IS for you to be happy" adds another level of meaning (sad desperation).


----------



## rhitagawr

quillerbee said:


> _All I want is for you to be successful_. While this could be used in the same context, it has a subtly different meaning. It's more than "All I want for you", it's "All I want (in the whole world)". It could be taken to mean that you have no interest in your own success, health, or happiness.


This interpretation occurred to me when I wrote my original reply. And I agree it's logical. But I don't think people would take it to mean you wanted the other person to be successful and you didn't want anything else. You're simply focussing on what you want for the person at the time.


----------



## natkretep

I encounter 'I want for you to ...' in some American speech and writing. It is more unusual in BrE (ewie suggests it's dialectal), and I associate it with older use.

For instance, the _for_ + _to_ construction can be found in the 1611 Bible (Authorised King James Version), _eg_ 'And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto _him_ the disciples, and embraced _them_, and departed *for to* go into Macedonia' (Acts 20:1).


----------

