For/To all intents and purposes

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Benjamin Barrett wrote:

> ... Thank you for this follow-up. This and Wilson's e-mails give me
> enough
> ammunition to insist that "for" be added to the entry.

i neglected to mention that the OED has both the "to" and the "for"
version, with no stigmata on "for".

the "to" version is the older (the OED's cites begin with the 1546
legal "to all intents, constructions, and purposes"; then similarly
in 1555; then the abbreviated "to all intentts" in 1629; and finally
"all intents and purposes" in 1709, from Addison).  the OED's first
cite for the "for" version is 1879, from Matthew Arnold; no doubt
many other cites from estimable authors could be found in the ensuing
131 years.

> As the cited webpage claimed this goes back to the 1500s, I
> wondered if
> the "to" simply belongs to an older form of grammar whose frozen state
> in this expression is now in the process of being updated.

well, yes.

> If people are
> indeed correcting the grammar, that would explain why the webpage
> author
> is claiming it is being "misheard".

i find it hard to talk about tacitly "correcting" what you hear as
"mishearing", though there's certainly a connection.

arnold

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org