A Stand-alone Response Starting with "Because"

No.

So to be an independent clause, it would have to be, "Because they made me angry, that's why"?

SnarfSo to be an independent clause, it would have to be, "Because they made me angry, that's why"?

Not quite. Though technically a fragment, because they made me angry is an elliptical sentence:

- I threw eggs at them.
- Why?
- (I threw eggs at them) because they made me angry.

So adding an independent cl

Aspara GusNot quite. Though technically a fragment, because they made me angry is an elliptical sentence

Meaning it is a complete sentence?

Aspara GusSo adding an independent clause to it looks too much like a comma splice

I completely agree. Indeed it does.

SnarfMeaning it is a complete sentence?

Kinda sorta, but not really.

Some parts of my

Okay, so basically the parts in brackets are implied, just like the "you" in "come on" is implied. Is "come on" an elliptical sentence as well, then, because the thing that makes it an independent clause is merely implied?

SnarfOkay, so basically the parts in brackets are implied, just like the "you" in "come on" is implied.

No, they are not comparable. Imperative sentences are not elliptical.

Consider the differences:

1. Please have patience.
2. Looking forward to it.

In #1, the subject is understood as you but not actu

So then (without removing "because"), rather than having that seeming comma splice when adding "that's why," would it be better to just treat them both like independent clauses in that person's reply (we are, of course, speaking of fictional dialogue right now)?

"Because they made me angry. That's why!"

Or, if that seems like too much of a spac

SnarfSo then (without removing "because"), rather than having that seeming comma splice when adding "that's why," would it be better to just treat them both like independent clauses in that person's reply (we are, of course, speaking of fictional dialogue right now)?

Yes.