0
Anonymous Posted 14 years ago
Grammar

Comma before because?

differentiate between these two sentences, in grammar and meaning

1-He quarreled, because they provoked him
2-He quarreled because they provoked him
  

Top answer

I would use a comma before because only in rare cases to avoid confusion. I'll use a recent post as an example: It's hard to say that we've been put on this earth for a sole reason because… See the problem? , Because Mallow is crying, it is raining.

  • I would use a comma before because only in rare cases to avoid confusion.
  • I'll use a recent post as an example: It's hard to say that we've been put on this earth for a sole reason because… See the problem?
  • , Because Mallow is crying, it is raining.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

11 Answers
0
I would use a comma before because only in rare cases to avoid confusion. I'll use a recent post as an example:

It's hard to say that we've been put on this earth for a sole reason because…

See the problem?

Otherwise, a comma should never be used with because unless it introduces a sentence, e.g., Because Mallow is crying, it is raining.
0
Anonymous1-He quarreled, because they provoked him
No. No comma. The main clause is so short that there is no need at all to resort to a comma to clarify the sentence structure. In general, don't use a comma before a because clause.

CJ
0
If there is straightforward cause and effect, do not use the comma. There are cases where a comma is called for, as it would be any other time there are two independent clauses joined with a conjunction, for example, "He went to sleep, because there was nothing else he could do until morning." The second clause doesn't really say why he went to sleep. Compare "He went to sleep because Skeletor pum
0
enoon"He went to sleep, because there was nothing else he could do until morning."
No comma is needed here. Besides, the second clause in fact does account for his retirement: There was nothing else he could do until morning. What other purpose could because possibly serve?
0
Aspara GusNo comma is needed here. Besides, the second clause in fact does account for his retirement: There was nothing else he could do until morning. What other purpose could because possibly serve?
Without the comma, the sentence becomes an explanation of why he went to sleep. What if I'm not trying to give a reason for his retirement but just saying he di
0
I see your point, but it does not warrant a comma, in my opinion. When I read the sentence with a comma, I do not perceive a different meaning; rather, I notice an unnecessary pause. If your purpose isn't to explain the retirement, you shouldn't use because; you could instead use a semicolon or rephrase the sentence entirely.

How about this:

"He went to sleep;
0
You can always write around anything. I wrote it the way I did to illustrate a point, so what's the use of rewriting? Anyway, a semicolon kind of means because. How about "Buy a Ferrari, because you only live once." You don't buy a Ferrari because life does not repeat, you buy it to drive fast and impress people.
0
Hi,

I agree with enoon.
If the stress and focus is very much on the main clause, it seems quite natural to me to pause before continuing.

Clive
0
CliveHi,I agree with enoon.If the stress and focus is very much on the main clause, it seems quite natural to me to pause before continuing.Clive
I agree as well, as long as because doesn't separate the two clauses. The word's sole purpose is to express a straightforward cause and effect. Clearly that was not enoons intention.
0
Hmm. I don't think I would have put a comma in the "He went to sleep because ..." sentence either, regardless of what shade of meaning because is supposed to convey. I'm not familiar with any guiding principles that ask the writer to consider the meaning of because when deciding on the comma, nor do I think it should be necessary to take a breath after four words.

Related Questions