Being in a country where Spanish is spoken natively, when folks speak English, I often hear them using phrases of the form "for [infinitive]" (e.g., "for to ask").
It strikes me – somewhat hesitatingly – as ungrammatical and as being rooted in a literal translation of the "para [infinitive]" form in Spanish.
But at the same time, the form has a certain familiarity to it in English. (Perhaps this is simply because I've heard this mistake so often that I'm starting to habituate to it.)
To indicate purpose in this manner, the more common forms in English would be either infinitive ("to ask"), or for + gerund ("for asking"). For those folks who are learning English and are interested in feedback, I would generally guide them away from using "for [infinitive]" and towards these two forms.
And yet I've occasionally seen the "for [infinitive]" form used by folks who seem quite competent in their English (just noticed it here, which prompted me to ask the question).
Thus this question is for to ask: is such usage grammatical or not?
Best Answer
The for is the first part of the for-to Complementizer that marks infinitive clauses.
For marks the subject of the infinitive clause, while to marks the verb of that clause.
It's obligatory in the sentences above, though in other cases it can be optional.
Since the subjects of infinitive clauses are often deleted, either because they're indefinite or because they refer predictably to some other NP in the sentence, the for part of the infinitive complementizer usually gets deleted with them, and other rules like Raising also delete the for marker. Consequently for is far less common than to in infinitive clauses. But it's part of the infinitive clause machinery, just like to.
Sporadic or local retention of the for, while deleting the subject NP, yields for to
Vbconstructions, which are archaic, but which occur in literature, poetry, songs, and modern dialects.