0
Goronsky Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
'Because'
I'm not running, because I hate to exercise.
(In this sentence, I'm not running. The reason is simply that I hate to exercise. Period. The comma before 'because' denotes this.)
I'm not running because I hate to exercise.
(The absence of the comma before 'because' changes the meaning of this sentence. The sentence is saying that I am in fact running, but not because I hate to exercise. I am running for a reason altogether different.)
My questions:
(1) Is my first sentence punctuated correctly based on the reason stated in parentheses, or should I just omit the comma?
(2) Is the second sentence punctuated correctly (i.e. no comma) based on the reason stated in parentheses?
Essentially, would you punctuate the sentences (as I did) based on my explanations of each?
Thank you.
(In this sentence, I'm not running. The reason is simply that I hate to exercise. Period. The comma before 'because' denotes this.)
I'm not running because I hate to exercise.
(The absence of the comma before 'because' changes the meaning of this sentence. The sentence is saying that I am in fact running, but not because I hate to exercise. I am running for a reason altogether different.)
My questions:
(1) Is my first sentence punctuated correctly based on the reason stated in parentheses, or should I just omit the comma?
(2) Is the second sentence punctuated correctly (i.e. no comma) based on the reason stated in parentheses?
Essentially, would you punctuate the sentences (as I did) based on my explanations of each?
Thank you.
Top answer
My take on this is that there is just one possible interpretation of the sentence's meaning: You are not running, and the reason you're not running is because you don't like exercise. The other meaning that you gave - you are running but it is not because you hate exercise - although grammatical, is logically awkward: you are running and the reason you are running is because you do not dislike exercise. This is kind of hitting the listener over the head logically, like saying, you are running and the reason you're running is because you are not missing your legs.
- My take on this is that there is just one possible interpretation of the sentence's meaning: You are not running, and the reason you're not running is because you don't like exercise.
- The other meaning that you gave - you are running but it is not because you hate exercise - although grammatical, is logically awkward: you are running and the reason you are running is because you do not dislike exercise.
- This is kind of hitting the listener over the head logically, like saying, you are running and the reason you're running is because you are not missing your legs.
- As for the comma, my view on this is that it can be put in or not, with no change in meaning.
- Some people simply omit it because it's extra work to put one in.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
My take on this is that there is just one possible interpretation of the sentence's meaning: You are not running, and the reason you're not running is because you don't like exercise.
The other meaning that you gave - you are running but it is not because you hate exercise - although grammatical, is logically awkward: you are running and the reason you are running is because you do not
The other meaning that you gave - you are running but it is not because you hate exercise - although grammatical, is logically awkward: you are running and the reason you are running is because you do not
00
What happened to your reply, Aspara Gus? I didn't have enough time to read it.
00
That’s a bad example. There are cases where a because phrase is ambiguous without punctuation, but this is not one of them. (Before my original reply I carelessly assumed it was and didn’t look closely enough, trusting that your reasoning was sound.)
00
Related Questions