How can “for” be classed as a coördinating conjunction in the following instances?

Question

How can *for* be classed as a coördinating conjunction in the following instances? - I cannot give you any money, for I have none. - He deserved to succeed, for he worked hard. - Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. In those sentences, *for* can easily be replaced with *because*. When because is used as a subordinating conjunction, how can for be classed as a coördinating conjunction? Just look at the first sentence for example: *I cannot give you any money.* *I have none.* The second sentence derives its meaning from the first sentence. It is subordinate to the first sentence, and therefore 'for' should be a Subordinating Conjunction in such a case, shouldn't it?

Answer 1

I understand your rationale about the subordinating and coordinating co junctions. The for- because debate has been ongoing!

Simplistically, for is one of only 7 accepted coordinating co junctions in the English Language. (The others are and, nor, but, or, yet, so which you can remember with the acronym FANBOYS).

Gramatically, a coordinating conjunction connects two independent clauses or sentences that are considered to be equal in meaning. "I can not give you any money" and "I have none" (with money being implied as the none) carry equal weight. Using the word "for" here essentially coordinates their values. When using because to connect them, the second clause/sentence is explaining or justifying the idea presented in the first half so it dosen't carry the same weight- the second half is less important when using "because" so is considered subordinating.

It's a very trivial difference, but I hope my explanation clarifies for you.