It definitely sounds natural with the 'for' and unnatural without.

If the sentence didn't have the 'was', e.g. "I wanted him to love me", then we wouldn't have the 'for'. With the 'was', some stress will naturally fall on whatever word comes next if we're not careful, and the 'for' prevents that from happening with 'him'. Therefore I think the 'for' helps indicate that 'him' now has to do something - the sentence can't just end with 'him', and 'him' is not such an important noun in the overall structure. The emphasis now falls on 'love'. I can also confirm that the 'for' has no extra meaning beyond gluing stuff together.

"Wanted was for" is past to present a duration of prosived love.

edit I dont see where you get future tense from it dude.

That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. However, both wanted and was are always past tense, never present tense.

A little bit of reading comprehension will show that he wasn't referring to the line in the original post, but to the line in his own post: "All I will ever really want is for him to love me."

Yes, there are still people who don't know that.

My god. Never quote piccolo directly please, it is just not right, and any comment you have about him keep it for yourself, thank you.

I really want to nitpicc your comment.

Alright, I guess after reading & rereading the relevant replies couple of times, I understood what's wrong if it was just a: "All I ever wanted was him to love me.", as this way generally logic ends on the "him", and then "to love me" is kind of lacking logical attachment.

This way the for kind of describes an act of wish, which is her desire for his love.

Could someone give another example please?

And are there similar cases using a word that differs from the "for"?

P.S:
Guys, shame on you.. I asked this question here after a girl sent me this screenshot, and was naive enough to give her the url. So she probably followed your PICCings on each other as well..

Is this why you invited me to smoke the pipe of peace?

Well, it isn't difficult to understand. Totally not something I'd use.

Is it possible to replace the "for he was annoying me" with "as he was annoying me"?

Thanks for the invite again. I'm unsure it's doable now, as the oil price is too low yet.

In your example the as sounds fine to me, the for sounds weird.

So, we have a weird for, and an understandable as. Is there anything else I don't know after studying it for twenty years? :\

Dizzy's 'for' means 'because', and is correct and normal, but it's not an example to match the one in the original screenshot.

Also, Dizzy, when you suggest a choice between "me and type568" and "type568 and I", you're telling me you've fallen victim to one of the most common mistakes people make. The rules are rarely explained properly at school, and they are:

• Put yourself second out of humility. That gives you "type568 and me" and "type568 and I".

• Whether to use 'me' or 'I' does not depend on whether there is another person. If you would say "for me" then you should say "for type568 and me". If you find yourself saying "It was a wonderful experience for my wife and I", then you have proved yourself right in your preaching about the need for better education, Prince Charles.

Anyway, you wanted another example of 'for' used in the same way as in the original screenshot. Here's one: "The best thing would be for Windows 10 to be so widely rejected that Microsoft are forced to make it look exactly like Windows 7."

She's more likely to be bothered by you saying that than by our shenanigans, you know Or in other words, "That escalated quickly"

I don't get it. After reading the article that dthompson linked to, I'd rearrange the original quote to "All I ever really wanted for was him to love me."

1. I wanted a cat

2. I wanted him to love me

3. All I ever wanted was a cat

4. All I ever wanted was him to love me

If #4 lacks logical attachment, then #2 does it, too. Then #2 requires the "for" as well. I guess #4, compared to #2, just makes it a bit more difficult to follow the completely logical grammatical logic. To me, adding the "for" completely destroys the logic.

This is a good explanation because it is.

You can also read my four sentences back and forth, until you get to see that the "for" is not needed. Or until you become a cat person. Or until you turn gay.