Receive Our Writing Tips via Email5 Calls for a Comma Before “Because”
Use of the word because as a subordinating conjunction — to link a main clause to a subordinating clause — should be simple, but a sentence’s meaning often hinges on whether it’s preceded by a comma.
A straightforward sentence such as “We’re off to see the wizard because of the wonderful things he does” requires no comma; the meaning of this sentence — “This is what we’re doing, and that is why we’re doing it” — is unambiguous. But when the sentence begins with a negative proposition, that’s not the case, as these examples show:
1. “Few adult Romanians speak English because it was forbidden during the Ceausescu era.”
This sentence, as (not) punctuated, absurdly implies a meaning of “This is not the primary reason adult Romanians speak English,” accompanied by the expectation of a follow-up sentence identifying one or more other causes for bilingual ability despite its prohibition.
But it doesn’t mean “There are more common reasons adult Romanians speak English”; it means “This is the reason few adult Romanians speak English.” Insert a comma, and the sentence tells you what, and then tells you why: “Few adult Romanians speak English, because it was forbidden during the Ceausescu era.”
2. “They don’t want to diagnose or treat Lyme disease because it is very costly to do so.”
Oh. Then why do they want to diagnose or treat Lyme disease? Again, a comma makes it clear that this sentence doesn’t serve to set up one or more alternate reasons; rather, the subordinating clause provides an explanation for the reluctance: “They don’t want to diagnose or treat Lyme disease, because it is very costly to do so.”
3. “Dementia can’t be ignored by the larger community because individuals with the disease cannot manage independently.”
Why, then, can dementia be ignored? That’s not what the sentence is trying to tell you. It’s explaining why the general populace should attend to the affliction: “Dementia can’t be ignored by the larger community, because individuals with the disease cannot manage independently.”
4. “I wouldn’t recommend chicken pox parties because of the risk.”
Tell me, then, why you would recommend them? (Aside: Said parties are often organized by groups of parents to deliberately expose their kids to chicken pox to get it over with.) The subordinate clause explains the statement in the main clause: “I wouldn’t recommend chicken pox parties, because of the risk.”
5. “The model couldn’t be applied to other sectors because it evolved to care for water, not civilization’s infrastructure.”
The implication is that the model could be applied to other sectors, but not for the reason stated. But the point is that it couldn’t be applied, and the reason follows: “The model couldn’t be applied to other sectors, because it evolved to care for water, not civilization’s infrastructure.”
See how a comma’s presence or absence can drastically change a sentence’s meaning? Sometimes, it’s important even when the sentence doesn’t begin with a negative proposition: “I know he got the biggest raise in the department because his wife told me” reads as if the writer is aware that the person got the raise because the person’s wife told the writer that the person got the raise — and the sentence turns into a Moebius strip. A comma nips this perpetual-motion machine in the bud: “I know he got the biggest raise in the department, because his wife told me.”
Related Articles
Share
Join Over 50,000 Email Subscribers and Get a Free eBook!
- Subscribe to DailyWritingTips.com via email and you'll be able to download our ebook, "Basic English Grammar."
- You will also get all our writing tips delivered to your email inbox, completely free!
- The download link will go along with the first email (you might need to wait up to 24 hours).
20 Responses to “5 Calls for a Comma Before “Because””
Have something to say?
Popular Articles
- 40 Yiddish Words You Should Know
- 10 Rules for Writing Numbers
- Vocabulary Test 1
- Passed vs Past
- Writing a Reference Letter
- Creative Writing 101
- 44 Resume Writing Tips
- Among vs. Amongst
- 6 Foreign Expressions You Should Know
- Let the Word Do the Work
- How to Format a US Business Letter
- That vs. Which
- 50 Incorrect Pronunciations To Avoid
- The Writing Process
- Inquire vs. Enquire
- 25 Pieces of Writing Software
- 12 Greek Words You Should Know
- Cannot or Can Not?
- What Does Sic Mean?
- 100 Small But Expressive Interjections
- Wether, Weather, Whether
- 34 Writing Tips To Write Better
- Yours Faithfully or Yours Sincerely?
- Latin Words and Expressions
- Grammar Test 1
- Program vs. Programme
- Writing Prompts 101
- 7 Essay Writing Tips To Ace Your Exam
- What Is Irony? (With Examples)
- 100 Beautiful and Ugly Words
- 7 Grammatical Errors That Aren't
I must be having a moment but I do not understand these examples.
I’m struggling to comprehend how the comma changes the sentence meaning.
Your humor tickles me.
Thanks for the reminder.
I wouldn’t use a comma before ‘because’ in any of the example sentences simply because it looks clunky and doesn’t truly clarify anything for me. Instead, I’d change the sentence structure.
I agree with Sally.
Mark,
Thank you for the nice nuance of language brought out here. Of course, these sentences aren’t formulated perfectly and could be much improved with changed syntax. However, editors encounter situations where completely rewriting a sentence is not an option, or at least not a good one.
It’s an editor’s task, if possible, to maintain the writer’s style as much as possible. That can still allow for rewriting a few extraordinarily clumsy sentences. But sometimes who you edit for determines whether you can allow yourself such extensive liberties with their prose. In that case, you maintain their style and prevent misunderstanding.
A comma is indeed used to pause in between a sentence.
Mark just presented a different prospect on how to see the hidden difference of a ‘comma’
Keep it up!
Lee:
Take the simplest of these sample sentences — “I wouldn’t recommend chicken pox parties because of the risk” — and read it aloud: If you attend to the lack of a comma before because, you’ll read it breathlessly and with no change in inflection, as if it were the first half of a two-part sentiment. (For example, “I wouldn’t recommend chicken pox parties because of the risk. I’d recommend them because it’s fun for the kids.”)
But the insertion of the comma signals a slight change in direction — and inflection — for “because of the risk”: “I wouldn’t (minuscule beat), and here’s why (mild downward inflection).” That sentence, constructed differently, has a different meaning.
Thanks Mark for the clarification.
I think the point I was missing was that the comma helps to emphasise the subordinate clause (conjoined by because) whereas without the comma to pause the sentence, the examples could all be classified as a main clause with no correspondong subordinate clause.
I think I’ve got it (unless my shabby explanation has just proved to all that I definitely haven’t ‘got it’).
Regards,
Lee
Correct me if I’m wrong, but couldn’t one just ALWAYS use a comma before “because” to avoid all ambiguities?
Joe:
I advise against that strategy because, as in this sentence, there’s
often no ambiguity. I usually omit a comma because I can. I’m happy
because after writing this paragraph, I have saved three commas for
another day.
I am not a native speaker but have been using English for quite a long time.
I still find it difficult to get the ambiguity that you are trying to point out here.
As for me, reading the example sentences don’t make me think about the possibility that the speaker may have a reason for doing the positive form of the main clause. And, I have never got such an impression when using English.
Does your string of thoughts go in the following way?
“I would not recommend chicken pox parties because of the risk.”
|
V
“I would recommend chicken pox parties not because of the risk.”
|
V
“I would recommend chicken pox parties because of the fun.”
It took me until your comment “I would recommend them because…” to understand what you’re getting at.
To me, that implies that the comma is not necessary because there is little chance of misunderstanding (and common sense is a lot more prevalent in the mores of English usage than hard-and-fast rules, unlike in other languages).
I’m honestly not sure if you’ve just picked bad examples or are hypercorrecting.
@Tadeus Prastowo: the idea is that these examples can be understood in two ways. “I wouldn’t recommend chicken pox parties because of the risk” can be understood to mean a) “Chicken pox parties are risky, and therefore I would not recommend them” or b) “I do recommend chicken pox parties, but the risk is not the reason I recommend them.”
The problem with that is, as you will have noticed from the other comments, is that nobody would understand the examples to mean (b) unless they were having a brainfart. Meaning (b) would normally be expressed by a positive phrasing or putting the “because” clause first:
“I recommend chicken pox parties because they’re fun, not because they’re risky”
“Because chicken pox parties are fun, I recommend them.”
Addendum: Firstly, excuse the double “is” in my previous post: I’ve had a few.
A clearer case for the comma before “because”, and the only one I recommend to my students, is:
“I knew Tony Blair would resign because my friend works at Number 10.”
Here it’s not clear whether I knew because my friend works at Number 10 or Blair resigned because my friend works at Number 10.
“I knew Tony Blair would resign, because my friend works at Number 10″ makes clear that I knew because my friend works there, and not that Blair resigned because he was sick of working with my friend.
I can understand how these sentences are confusing and the point you are trying to make, but as some other people have said, I still do not understand how putting a comma there clarifies anything. I am a copy editor by profession and the way I always deal with such issues is to recast the sentence so that the “because” phrase comes at the beginning. I think that is the best way to remove any ambiguity because it leaves room for no other interpretation.
Because it was forbidden during the Ceausescu era, few Romanians speak English.
Because it is very costly to do so, they don’t want to diagnose or treat Lyme disease.
Etc.
As for messing with a writer’s style, I don’t think that is much of a change at all, and any writer would be perfectly willing to accept such a correction.
howabout this one?
“I don’t go to parties because of the liquor; I go to parties to socialize.”
or
“I don’t go to parties, because of the liquor. My religion prevents me from surrounding myself with such things.”
Hello, everyone. I have been working for almost two years now writing articles and editing documents in an outsourcing company.
Examples 2 and 4 provide the best explanation for the idea of putting a comma before because. At first, I cannot see the essence of doing this. I find it unnatural and rather strange to put comma before because when the sentence just flows naturally without the comma.
I understand, though, that there are instances where the comma is warranted. Examples 2 and 4 are representatives.
Unless there is a need to show an extreme contrast, a subordinate clause following an independent clause should never have a comma. These rules instruct terrible grammar. If you want to learn when to use commas, refer to any English department that explains comma usage at a website ending in “.edu” or any recently published grammar book. Otherwise, you will end up reading unhelpful articles that ignore the rules of basic grammar and teach grammatical insights based merely on style or illogical whims. Because of that, there’s little to no logic to it, and any standards of the English language are thrown out the window.
Dave R., I think your example about Tony Blair most clearly makes the point.
I’ve come upon this site because I’m an editor. I just wasn’t sure about the below sentence.
“Certainly it’s healthier than someone who takes a clonazepam and Ambien cocktail every night with a doctor’s prescription because they might have trouble sleeping.”
While I don’t think there’s any real ambiguity, it is, in fact, NOT healthier because someone has trouble sleeping. The doctor wrote a prescription, and the person takes pills because said person has trouble sleeping…
I’m going with the comma.
I only got to the third example and stopped because all three were wrong. No comma is needed in any of those three sentences. The intended meaning is exactly clear, and because the expectation is no comma, adding one actually creates confusion.