“for” or “because”?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
Consider the following fill-in:
Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy, __ she hadn't practiced in weeks.
because
for
The presentation I'm looking at indicates "for" as the correct solution.
To me, "because" also sounds fine, but I would not use a comma after puppy in that case.
Is that essentially the reason "for" is best here, because of the way the fill-in is punctuated? Is "...puppy because..." valid also?
conjunctions
asked Aug 24 '12 at 20:07
rschwieb
215312
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
Consider the following fill-in:
Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy, __ she hadn't practiced in weeks.
because
for
The presentation I'm looking at indicates "for" as the correct solution.
To me, "because" also sounds fine, but I would not use a comma after puppy in that case.
Is that essentially the reason "for" is best here, because of the way the fill-in is punctuated? Is "...puppy because..." valid also?
conjunctions
asked Aug 24 '12 at 20:07
rschwieb
215312
2
Related: When are “because”, “since”,“for” and “as” interchangeable?
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 24 '12 at 20:11
@ЯegDwight Thanks for the link. I still hope someone can speak to the necessity of the comma, though.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:21
Just to throw in another option, I often use "as" in this situation.
– Arkanon
Aug 26 '12 at 22:49
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
Consider the following fill-in:
Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy, __ she hadn't practiced in weeks.
because
for
The presentation I'm looking at indicates "for" as the correct solution.
To me, "because" also sounds fine, but I would not use a comma after puppy in that case.
Is that essentially the reason "for" is best here, because of the way the fill-in is punctuated? Is "...puppy because..." valid also?
conjunctions
asked Aug 24 '12 at 20:07
rschwieb
215312
Consider the following fill-in:
Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy, __ she hadn't practiced in weeks.
because
for
The presentation I'm looking at indicates "for" as the correct solution.
To me, "because" also sounds fine, but I would not use a comma after puppy in that case.
Is that essentially the reason "for" is best here, because of the way the fill-in is punctuated? Is "...puppy because..." valid also?
conjunctions
conjunctions
asked Aug 24 '12 at 20:07
rschwieb
215312
asked Aug 24 '12 at 20:07
rschwieb
215312
asked Aug 24 '12 at 20:07
rschwieb
215312
asked Aug 24 '12 at 20:07
rschwieb
215312
asked Aug 24 '12 at 20:07
rschwieb
215312
215312
2
Related: When are “because”, “since”,“for” and “as” interchangeable?
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 24 '12 at 20:11
@ЯegDwight Thanks for the link. I still hope someone can speak to the necessity of the comma, though.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:21
Just to throw in another option, I often use "as" in this situation.
– Arkanon
Aug 26 '12 at 22:49
add a comment |
2
Related: When are “because”, “since”,“for” and “as” interchangeable?
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 24 '12 at 20:11
@ЯegDwight Thanks for the link. I still hope someone can speak to the necessity of the comma, though.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:21
Just to throw in another option, I often use "as" in this situation.
– Arkanon
Aug 26 '12 at 22:49
2
2
Related: When are “because”, “since”,“for” and “as” interchangeable?
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 24 '12 at 20:11
Related: When are “because”, “since”,“for” and “as” interchangeable?
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 24 '12 at 20:11
@ЯegDwight Thanks for the link. I still hope someone can speak to the necessity of the comma, though.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:21
@ЯegDwight Thanks for the link. I still hope someone can speak to the necessity of the comma, though.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:21
Just to throw in another option, I often use "as" in this situation.
– Arkanon
Aug 26 '12 at 22:49
Just to throw in another option, I often use "as" in this situation.
– Arkanon
Aug 26 '12 at 22:49
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
Your guess is right.
The exercise is trying to emphasize the difference between coordinator "for" and adverbial subordinator "because" in academic writing.
"For" is among a group of coordinating conjunctions best known by the phrase "fan boys." The group includes: F or, A nd, N or, B ut, O r, Y et, and S o.
When we combine clauses using one of the FAN BOYS, we normally put a comma after the first independent clause.
Independent clause + , + for + independent clause
On the other hand, "because" is an adverbial subordinator like although, if, while, when etc. Putting a comma between clauses depends on the position of your adverb clause. Like this:
S + V + because ... . (no comma)
Because ... + , + S + V. (with comma)
answered Aug 25 '12 at 6:28
Cool Elf
8,79521934
Ah! Then my instincts weren't completely unjustified! Thanks for the clear explanation.
– rschwieb
Aug 25 '12 at 11:28
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The comma should be present in either case. Both clauses that follow puppy are independent clauses. The comma reflects the separation of those distinct and complete thoughts. You could as easily write
Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy. She hadn't practiced in weeks.
answered Aug 24 '12 at 20:37
bib
68.4k8100212
2
Thanks. I think a comma-with-because is something I have habitually omitted because I feel like it is interrupting a single thought. It is obviously two completely thoughts, as you say.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:40
You could also drop the "because" or "for" thing and add a semicolon: "Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy; she hadn't practiced in weeks." I should also note that there is some ambiguity regarding whether "she" refers to Mackenzie or the puppy ...
– g33kz0r
Aug 24 '12 at 20:59
1
Complete thoughts is not the only thing that matters for comma placement. Counterexample: I think that Bob is crazy. Now I think and Bob is crazy can be two complete thoughts, but you (I presume) wouldn't write or say I think, that Bob is crazy. You have to do a more careful analysis of how because is functioning, and it can function differently in different instances. There is a perfectly good and reasonably nonarbitrary set of rules that don't put a comma here. Like the OP, I would not use one because of the way that the two clauses are related.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 21:12
1
@Rachel In your example, that Bob is crazy is a dependent clause. It is not a complete separate thought, but rather the direct object of the transitive verb, think. Yes, the sentence I think can be a complete thought, where the verb think is intransitive, but that is a wholly different meaning from your example. Complete thoughts are not the only thing, but in this case, do help decide comma use.
– bib
Aug 24 '12 at 22:22
@bib: because she hadn't practiced in weeks is also dependent, so my analogy and counterxample stand. Furthermore, complementizer that needn't be overt, so the objection is defeated either way. I only included that to strengthen the surface resemblance of the structures. My real argument (which won't fit in comments) would be about the semantics and pragmatics of the situation anyway, so many of these details are irrelevant. Perhaps you generally like adding commas. I would not have included the comma in "thing, but" in your last sentence.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 22:44
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
0
down vote
In 'A; for B', two coördinate statements are being made: (1) that A;
and (2) that B is the reason for A. (For is a coördinating
conjunction.) In 'A because B', (2) is expressed by a mere adverb,
and therefore grammatically subordinate to (1). Still, my sense is
that with because the emphasis is on (2). Or even stronger: it
seems to me that 'A because B' does not really express A at all, but
only that B is the reason for A.
answered Nov 25 at 10:00
Toothrot
626421
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
Your guess is right.
The exercise is trying to emphasize the difference between coordinator "for" and adverbial subordinator "because" in academic writing.
"For" is among a group of coordinating conjunctions best known by the phrase "fan boys." The group includes: F or, A nd, N or, B ut, O r, Y et, and S o.
When we combine clauses using one of the FAN BOYS, we normally put a comma after the first independent clause.
Independent clause + , + for + independent clause
On the other hand, "because" is an adverbial subordinator like although, if, while, when etc. Putting a comma between clauses depends on the position of your adverb clause. Like this:
S + V + because ... . (no comma)
Because ... + , + S + V. (with comma)
answered Aug 25 '12 at 6:28
Cool Elf
8,79521934
Ah! Then my instincts weren't completely unjustified! Thanks for the clear explanation.
– rschwieb
Aug 25 '12 at 11:28
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
Your guess is right.
The exercise is trying to emphasize the difference between coordinator "for" and adverbial subordinator "because" in academic writing.
"For" is among a group of coordinating conjunctions best known by the phrase "fan boys." The group includes: F or, A nd, N or, B ut, O r, Y et, and S o.
When we combine clauses using one of the FAN BOYS, we normally put a comma after the first independent clause.
Independent clause + , + for + independent clause
On the other hand, "because" is an adverbial subordinator like although, if, while, when etc. Putting a comma between clauses depends on the position of your adverb clause. Like this:
S + V + because ... . (no comma)
Because ... + , + S + V. (with comma)
answered Aug 25 '12 at 6:28
Cool Elf
8,79521934
Ah! Then my instincts weren't completely unjustified! Thanks for the clear explanation.
– rschwieb
Aug 25 '12 at 11:28
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
Your guess is right.
The exercise is trying to emphasize the difference between coordinator "for" and adverbial subordinator "because" in academic writing.
"For" is among a group of coordinating conjunctions best known by the phrase "fan boys." The group includes: F or, A nd, N or, B ut, O r, Y et, and S o.
When we combine clauses using one of the FAN BOYS, we normally put a comma after the first independent clause.
Independent clause + , + for + independent clause
On the other hand, "because" is an adverbial subordinator like although, if, while, when etc. Putting a comma between clauses depends on the position of your adverb clause. Like this:
S + V + because ... . (no comma)
Because ... + , + S + V. (with comma)
answered Aug 25 '12 at 6:28
Cool Elf
8,79521934
Your guess is right.
The exercise is trying to emphasize the difference between coordinator "for" and adverbial subordinator "because" in academic writing.
"For" is among a group of coordinating conjunctions best known by the phrase "fan boys." The group includes: F or, A nd, N or, B ut, O r, Y et, and S o.
When we combine clauses using one of the FAN BOYS, we normally put a comma after the first independent clause.
Independent clause + , + for + independent clause
On the other hand, "because" is an adverbial subordinator like although, if, while, when etc. Putting a comma between clauses depends on the position of your adverb clause. Like this:
S + V + because ... . (no comma)
Because ... + , + S + V. (with comma)
answered Aug 25 '12 at 6:28
Cool Elf
8,79521934
answered Aug 25 '12 at 6:28
Cool Elf
8,79521934
answered Aug 25 '12 at 6:28
Cool Elf
8,79521934
answered Aug 25 '12 at 6:28
Cool Elf
8,79521934
8,79521934
Ah! Then my instincts weren't completely unjustified! Thanks for the clear explanation.
– rschwieb
Aug 25 '12 at 11:28
add a comment |
Ah! Then my instincts weren't completely unjustified! Thanks for the clear explanation.
– rschwieb
Aug 25 '12 at 11:28
Ah! Then my instincts weren't completely unjustified! Thanks for the clear explanation.
– rschwieb
Aug 25 '12 at 11:28
Ah! Then my instincts weren't completely unjustified! Thanks for the clear explanation.
– rschwieb
Aug 25 '12 at 11:28
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The comma should be present in either case. Both clauses that follow puppy are independent clauses. The comma reflects the separation of those distinct and complete thoughts. You could as easily write
Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy. She hadn't practiced in weeks.
answered Aug 24 '12 at 20:37
bib
68.4k8100212
2
Thanks. I think a comma-with-because is something I have habitually omitted because I feel like it is interrupting a single thought. It is obviously two completely thoughts, as you say.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:40
You could also drop the "because" or "for" thing and add a semicolon: "Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy; she hadn't practiced in weeks." I should also note that there is some ambiguity regarding whether "she" refers to Mackenzie or the puppy ...
– g33kz0r
Aug 24 '12 at 20:59
1
Complete thoughts is not the only thing that matters for comma placement. Counterexample: I think that Bob is crazy. Now I think and Bob is crazy can be two complete thoughts, but you (I presume) wouldn't write or say I think, that Bob is crazy. You have to do a more careful analysis of how because is functioning, and it can function differently in different instances. There is a perfectly good and reasonably nonarbitrary set of rules that don't put a comma here. Like the OP, I would not use one because of the way that the two clauses are related.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 21:12
1
@Rachel In your example, that Bob is crazy is a dependent clause. It is not a complete separate thought, but rather the direct object of the transitive verb, think. Yes, the sentence I think can be a complete thought, where the verb think is intransitive, but that is a wholly different meaning from your example. Complete thoughts are not the only thing, but in this case, do help decide comma use.
– bib
Aug 24 '12 at 22:22
@bib: because she hadn't practiced in weeks is also dependent, so my analogy and counterxample stand. Furthermore, complementizer that needn't be overt, so the objection is defeated either way. I only included that to strengthen the surface resemblance of the structures. My real argument (which won't fit in comments) would be about the semantics and pragmatics of the situation anyway, so many of these details are irrelevant. Perhaps you generally like adding commas. I would not have included the comma in "thing, but" in your last sentence.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 22:44
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
The comma should be present in either case. Both clauses that follow puppy are independent clauses. The comma reflects the separation of those distinct and complete thoughts. You could as easily write
Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy. She hadn't practiced in weeks.
answered Aug 24 '12 at 20:37
bib
68.4k8100212
2
Thanks. I think a comma-with-because is something I have habitually omitted because I feel like it is interrupting a single thought. It is obviously two completely thoughts, as you say.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:40
You could also drop the "because" or "for" thing and add a semicolon: "Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy; she hadn't practiced in weeks." I should also note that there is some ambiguity regarding whether "she" refers to Mackenzie or the puppy ...
– g33kz0r
Aug 24 '12 at 20:59
1
Complete thoughts is not the only thing that matters for comma placement. Counterexample: I think that Bob is crazy. Now I think and Bob is crazy can be two complete thoughts, but you (I presume) wouldn't write or say I think, that Bob is crazy. You have to do a more careful analysis of how because is functioning, and it can function differently in different instances. There is a perfectly good and reasonably nonarbitrary set of rules that don't put a comma here. Like the OP, I would not use one because of the way that the two clauses are related.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 21:12
1
@Rachel In your example, that Bob is crazy is a dependent clause. It is not a complete separate thought, but rather the direct object of the transitive verb, think. Yes, the sentence I think can be a complete thought, where the verb think is intransitive, but that is a wholly different meaning from your example. Complete thoughts are not the only thing, but in this case, do help decide comma use.
– bib
Aug 24 '12 at 22:22
@bib: because she hadn't practiced in weeks is also dependent, so my analogy and counterxample stand. Furthermore, complementizer that needn't be overt, so the objection is defeated either way. I only included that to strengthen the surface resemblance of the structures. My real argument (which won't fit in comments) would be about the semantics and pragmatics of the situation anyway, so many of these details are irrelevant. Perhaps you generally like adding commas. I would not have included the comma in "thing, but" in your last sentence.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 22:44
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The comma should be present in either case. Both clauses that follow puppy are independent clauses. The comma reflects the separation of those distinct and complete thoughts. You could as easily write
Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy. She hadn't practiced in weeks.
answered Aug 24 '12 at 20:37
bib
68.4k8100212
The comma should be present in either case. Both clauses that follow puppy are independent clauses. The comma reflects the separation of those distinct and complete thoughts. You could as easily write
Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy. She hadn't practiced in weeks.
answered Aug 24 '12 at 20:37
bib
68.4k8100212
answered Aug 24 '12 at 20:37
bib
68.4k8100212
answered Aug 24 '12 at 20:37
bib
68.4k8100212
answered Aug 24 '12 at 20:37
bib
68.4k8100212
68.4k8100212
2
Thanks. I think a comma-with-because is something I have habitually omitted because I feel like it is interrupting a single thought. It is obviously two completely thoughts, as you say.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:40
You could also drop the "because" or "for" thing and add a semicolon: "Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy; she hadn't practiced in weeks." I should also note that there is some ambiguity regarding whether "she" refers to Mackenzie or the puppy ...
– g33kz0r
Aug 24 '12 at 20:59
1
Complete thoughts is not the only thing that matters for comma placement. Counterexample: I think that Bob is crazy. Now I think and Bob is crazy can be two complete thoughts, but you (I presume) wouldn't write or say I think, that Bob is crazy. You have to do a more careful analysis of how because is functioning, and it can function differently in different instances. There is a perfectly good and reasonably nonarbitrary set of rules that don't put a comma here. Like the OP, I would not use one because of the way that the two clauses are related.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 21:12
1
@Rachel In your example, that Bob is crazy is a dependent clause. It is not a complete separate thought, but rather the direct object of the transitive verb, think. Yes, the sentence I think can be a complete thought, where the verb think is intransitive, but that is a wholly different meaning from your example. Complete thoughts are not the only thing, but in this case, do help decide comma use.
– bib
Aug 24 '12 at 22:22
@bib: because she hadn't practiced in weeks is also dependent, so my analogy and counterxample stand. Furthermore, complementizer that needn't be overt, so the objection is defeated either way. I only included that to strengthen the surface resemblance of the structures. My real argument (which won't fit in comments) would be about the semantics and pragmatics of the situation anyway, so many of these details are irrelevant. Perhaps you generally like adding commas. I would not have included the comma in "thing, but" in your last sentence.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 22:44
|
show 1 more comment
2
Thanks. I think a comma-with-because is something I have habitually omitted because I feel like it is interrupting a single thought. It is obviously two completely thoughts, as you say.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:40
You could also drop the "because" or "for" thing and add a semicolon: "Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy; she hadn't practiced in weeks." I should also note that there is some ambiguity regarding whether "she" refers to Mackenzie or the puppy ...
– g33kz0r
Aug 24 '12 at 20:59
1
Complete thoughts is not the only thing that matters for comma placement. Counterexample: I think that Bob is crazy. Now I think and Bob is crazy can be two complete thoughts, but you (I presume) wouldn't write or say I think, that Bob is crazy. You have to do a more careful analysis of how because is functioning, and it can function differently in different instances. There is a perfectly good and reasonably nonarbitrary set of rules that don't put a comma here. Like the OP, I would not use one because of the way that the two clauses are related.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 21:12
1
@Rachel In your example, that Bob is crazy is a dependent clause. It is not a complete separate thought, but rather the direct object of the transitive verb, think. Yes, the sentence I think can be a complete thought, where the verb think is intransitive, but that is a wholly different meaning from your example. Complete thoughts are not the only thing, but in this case, do help decide comma use.
– bib
Aug 24 '12 at 22:22
@bib: because she hadn't practiced in weeks is also dependent, so my analogy and counterxample stand. Furthermore, complementizer that needn't be overt, so the objection is defeated either way. I only included that to strengthen the surface resemblance of the structures. My real argument (which won't fit in comments) would be about the semantics and pragmatics of the situation anyway, so many of these details are irrelevant. Perhaps you generally like adding commas. I would not have included the comma in "thing, but" in your last sentence.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 22:44
2
2
Thanks. I think a comma-with-because is something I have habitually omitted because I feel like it is interrupting a single thought. It is obviously two completely thoughts, as you say.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:40
Thanks. I think a comma-with-because is something I have habitually omitted because I feel like it is interrupting a single thought. It is obviously two completely thoughts, as you say.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:40
You could also drop the "because" or "for" thing and add a semicolon: "Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy; she hadn't practiced in weeks." I should also note that there is some ambiguity regarding whether "she" refers to Mackenzie or the puppy ...
– g33kz0r
Aug 24 '12 at 20:59
You could also drop the "because" or "for" thing and add a semicolon: "Mackenzie's clarinet squealed like a startled puppy; she hadn't practiced in weeks." I should also note that there is some ambiguity regarding whether "she" refers to Mackenzie or the puppy ...
– g33kz0r
Aug 24 '12 at 20:59
1
1
Complete thoughts is not the only thing that matters for comma placement. Counterexample: I think that Bob is crazy. Now I think and Bob is crazy can be two complete thoughts, but you (I presume) wouldn't write or say I think, that Bob is crazy. You have to do a more careful analysis of how because is functioning, and it can function differently in different instances. There is a perfectly good and reasonably nonarbitrary set of rules that don't put a comma here. Like the OP, I would not use one because of the way that the two clauses are related.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 21:12
Complete thoughts is not the only thing that matters for comma placement. Counterexample: I think that Bob is crazy. Now I think and Bob is crazy can be two complete thoughts, but you (I presume) wouldn't write or say I think, that Bob is crazy. You have to do a more careful analysis of how because is functioning, and it can function differently in different instances. There is a perfectly good and reasonably nonarbitrary set of rules that don't put a comma here. Like the OP, I would not use one because of the way that the two clauses are related.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 21:12
1
1
@Rachel In your example, that Bob is crazy is a dependent clause. It is not a complete separate thought, but rather the direct object of the transitive verb, think. Yes, the sentence I think can be a complete thought, where the verb think is intransitive, but that is a wholly different meaning from your example. Complete thoughts are not the only thing, but in this case, do help decide comma use.
– bib
Aug 24 '12 at 22:22
@Rachel In your example, that Bob is crazy is a dependent clause. It is not a complete separate thought, but rather the direct object of the transitive verb, think. Yes, the sentence I think can be a complete thought, where the verb think is intransitive, but that is a wholly different meaning from your example. Complete thoughts are not the only thing, but in this case, do help decide comma use.
– bib
Aug 24 '12 at 22:22
@bib: because she hadn't practiced in weeks is also dependent, so my analogy and counterxample stand. Furthermore, complementizer that needn't be overt, so the objection is defeated either way. I only included that to strengthen the surface resemblance of the structures. My real argument (which won't fit in comments) would be about the semantics and pragmatics of the situation anyway, so many of these details are irrelevant. Perhaps you generally like adding commas. I would not have included the comma in "thing, but" in your last sentence.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 22:44
@bib: because she hadn't practiced in weeks is also dependent, so my analogy and counterxample stand. Furthermore, complementizer that needn't be overt, so the objection is defeated either way. I only included that to strengthen the surface resemblance of the structures. My real argument (which won't fit in comments) would be about the semantics and pragmatics of the situation anyway, so many of these details are irrelevant. Perhaps you generally like adding commas. I would not have included the comma in "thing, but" in your last sentence.
– Rachel
Aug 24 '12 at 22:44
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
0
down vote
In 'A; for B', two coördinate statements are being made: (1) that A;
and (2) that B is the reason for A. (For is a coördinating
conjunction.) In 'A because B', (2) is expressed by a mere adverb,
and therefore grammatically subordinate to (1). Still, my sense is
that with because the emphasis is on (2). Or even stronger: it
seems to me that 'A because B' does not really express A at all, but
only that B is the reason for A.
answered Nov 25 at 10:00
Toothrot
626421
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
In 'A; for B', two coördinate statements are being made: (1) that A;
and (2) that B is the reason for A. (For is a coördinating
conjunction.) In 'A because B', (2) is expressed by a mere adverb,
and therefore grammatically subordinate to (1). Still, my sense is
that with because the emphasis is on (2). Or even stronger: it
seems to me that 'A because B' does not really express A at all, but
only that B is the reason for A.
answered Nov 25 at 10:00
Toothrot
626421
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
In 'A; for B', two coördinate statements are being made: (1) that A;
and (2) that B is the reason for A. (For is a coördinating
conjunction.) In 'A because B', (2) is expressed by a mere adverb,
and therefore grammatically subordinate to (1). Still, my sense is
that with because the emphasis is on (2). Or even stronger: it
seems to me that 'A because B' does not really express A at all, but
only that B is the reason for A.
answered Nov 25 at 10:00
Toothrot
626421
In 'A; for B', two coördinate statements are being made: (1) that A;
and (2) that B is the reason for A. (For is a coördinating
conjunction.) In 'A because B', (2) is expressed by a mere adverb,
and therefore grammatically subordinate to (1). Still, my sense is
that with because the emphasis is on (2). Or even stronger: it
seems to me that 'A because B' does not really express A at all, but
only that B is the reason for A.
answered Nov 25 at 10:00
Toothrot
626421
edited Nov 25 at 10:05
answered Nov 25 at 10:00
Toothrot
626421
answered Nov 25 at 10:00
Toothrot
626421
answered Nov 25 at 10:00
Toothrot
626421
626421
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f79465%2ffor-or-because%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Related: When are “because”, “since”,“for” and “as” interchangeable?
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 24 '12 at 20:11
@ЯegDwight Thanks for the link. I still hope someone can speak to the necessity of the comma, though.
– rschwieb
Aug 24 '12 at 20:21
Just to throw in another option, I often use "as" in this situation.
– Arkanon
Aug 26 '12 at 22:49