For to ask if this title is grammatical

Solution 1:

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.

• For him to make a scene would be unwise. but *Him to make a scene would be unwise.
• It would be unwise for him to make a scene but *It would be unwise him to make a scene.

It's obligatory in the sentences above, though in other cases it can be optional.

• I want (for) you to take this to Uncle Joe.

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 Vb constructions, which are archaic, but which occur in literature, poetry, songs, and modern dialects.

Solution 2:

In the British Isles it would be seen as outdated and quaint, though even in the late 20th century it was heard often enough in Ireland. "He went there for to buy a horse". But I haven't heard it for a couple of decades there or anywhere else.