Usage of "for example"

nozzferrahhtoo

Hi all,

I learn something new every day. Can someone tell me how to use and not use "for example" in a sentence.

Specifically I want to know about using it at the end of a sentence. Is this a complete no no? If so what are the exact rules defining this. Is there a citation I can look at? It is a hard one to find on google because "for example" is used in so many articles on English grammar usage that I am having issues.

For example, is the following wrong and if so exactly why?

"Especially if you have things that should be making you happy. Things like money and love are good reasons why you might claim to be happy, content or complete, for example. This does not mean you are."

Also does it have any effect grammatically that the "for example" is applying to the content of the previous sentence not the things in the current sentence?

P. Breathnach

I prefer to use "for example" before the example I refer to as in, for example, this sentence.

But it's not wrong to use it after the example as in this sentence, for example.

It's very much a style preference.

pickarooney

Just don't use "e.g." after the fact.

nozzferrahhtoo

So there is nothing actually grammatically wrong with the sentence in my opening post?

pickarooney

I wouldn't start a sentence with "especially" but other than that it seems fine.

P. Breathnach

I don't think nozzferrahhtoo started a sentence with "especially". I don't think "Especially if you have things that should be making you happy." is a sentence; it's a detached conditional clause.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yea the first sentence was just written quickly to give context to the sentence I was asking about. Any errors in that are not really my focus

The reason I asked was just that I was pulled up for putting the for example at the end of the sentence in the way I did. I looked around the internet to confirm the correction and could find nothing. So thought I would ask here.

The main problem is that if you google something like <grammar "for example" sentence position> you get a lot of results which have nothing to do with what I was asking.

P. Breathnach

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...
The reason I asked was just that I was pulled up for putting the for example at the end of the sentence in the way I did....

How do you think the sentence would be if recast to "Things like money and love are good reasons why you might claim to be, for example, happy or content or complete."? [Note that I have made a small edit in addition to moving "for example".]

pickarooney

How about using it on its own? Is everyone down with that?

There are loads of ways you can save money.
For example?

nozzferrahhtoo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How do you think the sentence would be if recast to "Things like money and love are good reasons why you might claim to be, for example, happy or content or complete."? [Note that I have made a small edit in addition to moving "for example".]

That to me changes the entire meaning of my paragraph. See I think the main issue is that my "for example" refers to the previous sentence, not the things in the current sentence (happy, content or complete in this case).

I get the spirit of your question though... is it possible to rewrite the sentence with "for example" in a more pleasing place. A good question and I am sure it is. It in fact would make just as much sense in the context of my paragraph to write it as: "For example, things like money and love are good reasons why you might claim to be happy, content or complete". That would not change the meaning of my sentence and I conceed it is clearer than I am not referring the "for example" to the previous sentence.

So indeed writing it that was is "better". The question concerning me however is whether writing it like I did is wrong. Not whether or not it can be improved upon and I was essentially wondering if there is any formal rule dictating where "for example" can or cannot appear in a sentence, especially in the context of it applying to the previous sentence.

P. Breathnach

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That to me changes the entire meaning of my paragraph. See I think the main issue is that my "for example" refers to the previous sentence, not the things in the current sentence (happy, content or complete in this case).

I get the spirit of your question though... is it possible to rewrite the sentence with "for example" in a more pleasing place. A good question and I am sure it is. It in fact would make just as much sense in the context of my paragraph to write it as: "For example, things like money and love are good reasons why you might claim to be happy, content or complete". That would not change the meaning of my sentence and I conceed it is clearer than I am not referring the "for example" to the previous sentence.

So indeed writing it that was is "better". The question concerning me however is whether writing it like I did is wrong. Not whether or not it can be improved upon and I was essentially wondering if there is any formal rule dictating where "for example" can or cannot appear in a sentence, especially in the context of it applying to the previous sentence.

There is a simple basis for suggesting that your usage of "for example" is wrong: it is not unequivocally clear what it refers to.

Let's get right into things. When you write "things like money and love ...", there is already an implicit suggestion that it is not an exhaustive list. It could be argued that "for example" is redundant.

Lack of clarity or redundancy are not wrong in the sense that a generally-agreed rule has been broken. I cannot point to clause 5, sub-section 3, and say "Look! There's the rule you have broken." But I can say that I think your sentence can be improved.

While I am nit-picking:
- I could question the way you seem to associate money and love, inviting the reader to put them in one category. Would your sentence lose anything if you wrote "money or love"?
- Is love a thing?

nozzferrahhtoo

Cool thanks again. I will not be defending the actual content of the sentences as I just threw together the paragraph as an example and the subject of it and the content are irrelevant Feel free to change "money" and "love" to anything else you want.

Here is another example.... for example :-p

The context here is when someone suggests that people on forums should "proof read their posts". The reply to this is:

"That one change is likely to have more effect than you think. Especially for those who suffer from things that mean their posts need it all the more. Things like Dyslexia and ADHD are good excuses for why your ability to spell, type or construct coherent sentences may be poor for example. They are not good excuses for an inability to run your post into a spell checker."

P. Breathnach

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...
Here is another example.... for example :-p

The context here is when someone suggests that people on forums should "proof read their posts". The reply to this is:

"That one change is likely to have more effect than you think. Especially for those who suffer from things that mean their posts need it all the more. Things like Dyslexia and ADHD are good excuses for why your ability to spell, type or construct coherent sentences may be poor for example. They are not good excuses for an inability to run your post into a spell checker."

Your new example is, as I presume you intended, exactly the same construction as the first one (except for the comma omitted before "for example"). I would still take the position that "for example" is redundant because of "things like". Both are ways of saying that dyslexia and ADHD is not an exhaustive list.

Consider the rearrangement "Things like dyslexia and ADHD, for example, ...". Would the sentence lose some if its meaning if you omitted one of "things like" and "for example"? My view is that it would not.

pickarooney

I have the same feeling about the vagueness of "things like" and "for example" used together.

Honestly, I found that paragraph very had to read (and I have neither dyslexia nor ADHD ), particularly the second sentence. I had to read it a few times, and even read to the end, to know what exactly 'things', 'their' and 'it' referred to. The sentence is almost entirely redundant in my view.

In the third sentence it's not immediately obvious that 'for example' refers all the way back to dyslexia/ADHD or indeed why you have included 'for example' at all.

I probably would have written it something like this:

"That one change is likely to have more effect that you think, particularly if you suffer from, for example, dyslexia or ADHD - conditions which can impair your ability to spell, type or construct coherent sentences. There is no good excuse for not running your posts through a spell checker."

nozzferrahhtoo

And a final thanks then. So the final conclusion I am drawing is that while there are a number of good ways to have constructed the sentence better (and I have taken them on board and will consider it in my future writings) there is nothing actually technically wrong with it as it stands. Which was my main question as the person who pulled me up on it is strenuously insisting there was. Though said person is refusing to cite... well anything... to support his position.

Thanks all for your time on this.

pickarooney

Indeed, there's no problem with using "for example" after the example as long as it's immediately after.

If the person who pulled you up on it can't provide a single source or example of why your choice of syntax affects meaning or breaks 'the rules' you should probably ignore him.

The equivalent expression can be used before or after in any language I can think of off the top of my head, for what it's worth.

P. Breathnach

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And a final thanks then. So the final conclusion I am drawing is that while there are a number of good ways to have constructed the sentence better (and I have taken them on board and will consider it in my future writings) there is nothing actually technically wrong with it as it stands. Which was my main question as the person who pulled me up on it is strenuously insisting there was. Though said person is refusing to cite... well anything... to support his position.

To be fair, I cannot cite a rule that you have broken. It is sometimes possible to recognise that something is wrong in the way that a person uses language, yet find it very difficult to put a finger on exactly what it is. That is especially true when it is a problem of usage rather than grammar or syntax.

Thanks all for your time on this.

You are welcome. You brought up an interesting question that I (and I presume pickarooney) enjoyed teasing out, so it has been a mutually rewarding experience.