When do you use a comma before 'because'?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gregg Bell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
164
Location
Itasca, Illinois (U.S.)
Sometimes it's clear.

I failed the test because I didn't study. (no comma)

But sometimes it just seems like such a guessing game. I have longer sentences that the meaning isn't all that clear and I'm uncertain as to whether to use a comma or not.

Anybody got any ballpark-rule on this?
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Yes. You use a comma before the word because when joining two independent clauses, with 'because,' acting as the conjunction following the comma.
 

EmmaSohan

Banned
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
28
Reaction score
5
Sometimes it's clear.

I failed the test because I didn't study. (no comma)

But sometimes it just seems like such a guessing game. I have longer sentences that the meaning isn't all that clear and I'm uncertain as to whether to use a comma or not.

Anybody got any ballpark-rule on this?

When you have two ideas, use a comma; if you just have an explanation, don't use a comma. I use this example:

1. George Washington was elected president because the people trusted him.
2. I can't swear at him, because I'm on probation.

#1 assumes that the reader knows Washington was elected president and only explains why.
#2 first says she can't swear at him, then explains why. Two things.

If you want to be grammatically correct, #1 follows the rules. But that's a really bad idea (to follow the grammar rules for a comma before because.)

How did you do on the test? I failed the test, because I didn't study.
Why did you fail the test? I failed the test because I didn't study.
 
Last edited:

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
843
Location
Connecticut
People use a lot of commas that are both grammatically incorrect and also unnecessary. There are a lot fewer commas that are unnecessary but required by grammatical sticklers -- but these too exist.

Experiment: delete all the commas in a text. Go back and replace commas only where they're required to understand the meaning of the sentence. How many of the original commas are still missing? Will anybody really miss them?

The Big Rule of commas: when in doubt, leave them out.

(Except for the Oxford comma. Wars have been (metaphorically) fought over that one. Pick your side.)
 

Fallen

Stood at the coalface
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
1,957
Website
www.jacklpyke.com
Emma's right: there's times you do use a comma, and times you don't.

CMoS Q&A session uses: He didn't run because he was afraid.

There's potential ambiguity here if no comma is used. Did he A: not run because he felt something other than fear and that made him run, or didhe B: run because he was afraid afterall?

CMoS advises a comma to avoid the ambiguity. He didn't run, because he was afraid.

You don't need a comma if it's clear it's direct cause and effect, where there's no ambbiguity.:

"We're off to see the wizard because of the wonderful things he does."
 

Gregg Bell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
164
Location
Itasca, Illinois (U.S.)
When you have two ideas, use a comma; if you just have an explanation, don't use a comma. I use this example:

1. George Washington was elected president because the people trusted him.
2. I can't swear at him, because I'm on probation.

#1 assumes that the reader knows Washington was elected president and only explains why.
#2 first says she can't swear at him, then explains why. Two things.

If you want to be grammatically correct, #1 follows the rules. But that's a really bad idea (to follow the grammar rules for a comma before because.)

How did you do on the test? I failed the test, because I didn't study.
Why did you fail the test? I failed the test because I didn't study.

Thanks Emma. Good explanation. Seems it all comes down to meaning. Like your 'test' example. Which of course makes perfect sense. I think sometimes I just read things too quickly to absorb their meaning. I just want to throw a comma (or not) in there like a dart and be done with it.
 

Gregg Bell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
164
Location
Itasca, Illinois (U.S.)
People use a lot of commas that are both grammatically incorrect and also unnecessary. There are a lot fewer commas that are unnecessary but required by grammatical sticklers -- but these too exist.

Experiment: delete all the commas in a text. Go back and replace commas only where they're required to understand the meaning of the sentence. How many of the original commas are still missing? Will anybody really miss them?

The Big Rule of commas: when in doubt, leave them out.

(Except for the Oxford comma. Wars have been (metaphorically) fought over that one. Pick your side.)

Thanks ben. I like your Big Rule. Trying to punctuate for grammatical sticklers fills the page with punctuation. (A lot of it unnecessary.) And the Oxford comma. I'm not going to worry about that one.
 

Gregg Bell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
164
Location
Itasca, Illinois (U.S.)
Emma's right: there's times you do use a comma, and times you don't.

CMoS Q&A session uses: He didn't run because he was afraid.

There's potential ambiguity here if no comma is used. Did he A: not run because he felt something other than fear and that made him run, or didhe B: run because he was afraid afterall?

CMoS advises a comma to avoid the ambiguity. He didn't run, because he was afraid.

You don't need a comma if it's clear it's direct cause and effect, where there's no ambbiguity.:

"We're off to see the wizard because of the wonderful things he does."

Thanks Fallen. I read the CMoS post too. And got a little confused. LOL But I like your:

You don't need a comma if it's clear it's direct cause and effect, where there's no ambiguity.

That simplifies it nicely.
 

DanielSTJ

The Wandering Bard
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
368
Age
34
Location
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
This was a great thread. I was paying close attention and I hope to avoid errors involving this in the future.

Nice!
 

GregFH

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
132
Reaction score
25
Location
NYC

screenscope

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
681
Reaction score
78
Location
Sydney, Australia
For me, the most important thing is how the sentence reads within the wider context of the paragraph and/or scene, so pacing and other elements are important. A comma is a very handy little squiggle to play around with for effect.
 

DanielSTJ

The Wandering Bard
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
368
Age
34
Location
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
:roll:

This is what happens when I don't write my fiction/poetry like I write my forum posts. :p

You're cheeky. :hi:
 

Gregg Bell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
164
Location
Itasca, Illinois (U.S.)
You might be interested in this discussion of "because": http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_...tion_as_dictionaries_have_it_but_instead.html
If he's right, and because is always a preposition, you would never use a comma on either side of "because".

Here's a good discussion of the traditional rules about commas and "because" (as a conjunction): https://www.dailywritingtips.com/5-calls-for-a-comma-before-“because”/


Wow, thanks for the links. I don't know if I want to get that into using a comma with because! I do think you have to use one, if necessary, though, like the "5 calls" link says for meaning. But yeah, 'because' is not a coordinating conjunction.
 

flowerburgers

New Fish; Learning About Thick Skin
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
442
Reaction score
40
Location
San Francisco
As far as I know, you don't use a comma before a subordinating clause if it is preceded by an independent clause...but I bend this rule when I like the sound of an extra pause before the conjunction. Subordinating conjunctions are words like "because," "while," "when," etc., and they make an independent clause (or, more simply, a complete sentence) dependent. For those of you who have offered alternate explanations--where are you drawing this information from? I teach grammar, and now I'm terrified that this is more nuanced than I realized!
 
Last edited:

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
As far as I know, you don't use a comma before a subordinating clause if it is preceded by an independent clause...but I bend this rule when I like the sound of an extra pause before the conjunction.

Readers may indeed detect a natural pause at the end of an independent clause, but it's not really a "sound," and a reading pause has nothing to do with a comma and everything to do with the structure of the sentence.

For those of you who have offered alternate explanations--where are you drawing this information from?

Purdue's Online Writing Lab is an excellent source. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/

I teach grammar, and now I'm terrified that this is more nuanced than I realized!

I taught grammar for 27 years. The terrors of multi-nuanced grammar pretty much go hand-in-hand with the teaching of it. Teaching commas equal pauses is way too simplified to be correct, and the real deal means looking harder at sentence structures. :greenie
 
Last edited:

EmmaSohan

Banned
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
28
Reaction score
5
I joined here to answer this question, so perhaps I can be forgiven for answering twice.

First, from Purdue's Online Writing Lab: "This comma use is correct, because it is an example of extreme contrast."

Second, the issue isn't nuanced to me. Use a comma before because to suggest two ideas (something + explanation); leave the comma out to suggest just one idea (an explanation of a known fact).

Third, in my grammar book I discuss how punctuation changes pitch. If you wanted to go by sound, pitch is probably a better guide than pausing. Or instead of saying "I wanted a pause" just say "I wanted a break". Then you don't have to get into whether the break is caused by a pause, drop in pitch, or just the visual symbol of a comma.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,776
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Emma is right; "because" doesn't need a comma when it introduces a clause of purpose (a clause that answers a why question). It serves as a subordinating conjunction.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma-before-because/

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/when-to-use-a-comma-before-because

My dog bit the vet because she doesn't trust strangers.

However, one can make an exception when a comma is needed for clarity.

My dog didn't bite me because she trusts me.

This can be read to mean that my dog did bite me, but she didn't do it because she trusts me. Or does it mean she didn't bite me and her reason for not biting was trust?

If it's the latter, then a comma helps clarify.

My dog didn't bite me, because she trusts me.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.