Talk:because
Add topicLatest comment: 3 months ago by SimsimUE in topic French translation???
Pronunciation
[edit]I'm surprised that I don't see mention anywhere of the regional pronunciation more like "be koss" - notably Terry Gross, Bernie Sanders, John Brennan.
Interjection
[edit]Is because an interjection, or just the previous sense used on its own?Mglovesfun (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it is an interjection, have added a sense at Conjunction, and RfDed the Interjection. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
French translation (conjunction)
[edit]I deleted "en raison" in French, which is uncorrect; "en raison de" is the translation of "because of" (preposition and NOT conjunction); as a cunjunction, it would be "en raison que", which seems me unused.
"car" is not as frequently used as "parce que", but is current in formal speech and litterature.
--Lucyin 16:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
because#Interjection. Not an expression of emotion, of course. An answer to a question begun with (deprecated template usage) why, typically. No more an interjection than "My car." in answer to "What is your most marketable piece of tangible personal property?" Does the appropriate new sense fit better under the Adverb or Conjunction header. Do we need a new header for one-word pro-sentences, which are often ellipses? DCDuring TALK 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd think it's generally ellipsis for the conjunction. I'm not sure whether we should have the sense. Probably. (Compare *"What did you tell him?" ―"I told him that... that... just that!" and *"Under what conditions will you come?" ―"If!".) If so, it should definitely not be under an Interjection header.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd added a sense under the conjunction that includes the usage. Because it is not used in the canonical way and has a discourse-control function when used in that way, I would argue that it is a distinct sense. DCDuring TALK 16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, yes, delete the interjection sense. In fact, IMO, since this was just a question of moving the sense to the right POS section rather than getting rid of it altogether, you could've done so without bringing it here.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- It could be deemed excessive scepter-wielding. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, yes, delete the interjection sense. In fact, IMO, since this was just a question of moving the sense to the right POS section rather than getting rid of it altogether, you could've done so without bringing it here.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd added a sense under the conjunction that includes the usage. Because it is not used in the canonical way and has a discourse-control function when used in that way, I would argue that it is a distinct sense. DCDuring TALK 16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. I agree with Msh210 (talk • contribs); changing the POS is not "deletion", and falls under WT:BOLD. —RuakhTALK 18:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Does that apply to attributive use of nouns that are claimed to be adjectives (subject to adjectivity tests)? Do most folks view these matters the same way? DCDuring TALK 20:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- When the appropriate sense already exists under the correct POS, then there's something a bit more "deletion"-y about removing the version under the wrong POS. Personally I still think BOLDness is the way to go even then, but at least RFD makes sense for that. (Alternatively, TR.) Also, this is neither here nor there, but I think you're misusing "attributive use" again. It does not mean "adjective-like use". —RuakhTALK 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Right, it refers to one specific kind of use of a noun, a use as a modifier of another noun, a kind of use it shares with adjectives. This is the use that is almost always the use indicated in any usage example provided and, I wager, is also almost always the motivation for a contributor adding an adjective PoS section where the noun has the same semantics as the adjective. If I am making a category error, I am doing it in the interest of consistency with the language I have learned here and as a kind of shorthand. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Re: your first sentence: No, not at all. Well, you use the term that way, so yes, that's what it refers to when you use it; but that's not what it means to everyone else. It's a crappy kind of shorthand, because it takes a useful real-world word with a well-defined and relevant meaning, and uses that word in a completely different way that seems superficially the same. I don't understand why you feel the need for a specific term that "refers to one specific kind of use of a noun, a use as a modifier of another noun", since in all the cases that you've used "attributive" for that, the term "noun" would actually have worked just as well; but as you obviously do feel the need for such a term, why can't you just make one up? That would be more honest, and would make it clear that you are expressing your own personal POV rather than anything that other editors should feel compelled to accept. —RuakhTALK 23:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- When I go to a reference work that uses the term "attributive use of the noun", how should I read that? DCDuring TALK 23:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's not a single term — it's SOP — but it means "use of the noun before another noun, which it modifies" (as in "chicken salad"). Importantly, it can be contrasted with "attributive use of the adjective" (as in "angry dog"); and also importantly, it can be contrasted with "predicative use of the noun" (as in "they made him president" or "digging trenches is work"), which also superficially looks like adjectives. So "attributive" does not imply "noun", and "modifier of another noun" does not imply "attributive". And I'm not just speaking abstractly; more than once I've seen you nominate an adjective section for deletion as "attributive use" when the entry itself had predicative usage examples. —RuakhTALK 00:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- (I should clarify one thing: some reference works consider tall in he is tall to be a "modifier", and I believe that's the traditional use of the term; but other reference works, such as CGEL, do not, considering "modifier" and "predicative" to be mutually exclusive. Since you've used "attributive use" in reference to predicative examples, I can't even begin to guess how you're using the term "modifier". If you're using it in the CGEL sense, and by "it" above you meant something like "'attributive use of nouns'", rather than just the "'attributive use'" in the comment you were replying to, then your definition was pretty accurate. Which is pretty bad, if so; defining it wrong and using it wrong is infuriating, but defining it right and using it wrong seems like lying.) —RuakhTALK 00:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't recall intentionally using attributive except as a coordinate term of predicative. I hesitate to use any term the way CGEL does because their system often does not comport with what I read elsewhere. They often make their departure from usage by others quite explicit.
- I still don't understand what particular use bothers you. When I object to a purported adjective, I assert that the usage that appears as an example or has motivated the creation of the adjective section is not the full range of true adjective usage but is merely attributive use of the noun. The unstated premise, implicit in an RfD, is that the term does not exist as an adjective or should not be considered to exist as an adjective. Where is the error? DCDuring TALK 03:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Re: "When I object to a purported adjective, I assert that the usage that appears as an example or has motivated the creation of the adjective section is not the full range of true adjective usage but is merely attributive use of the noun": Yes, I've noticed that you assert that. One problem is that you assert that even when the example usages are not attributive, or even when it's implausible that attributive use is what motivated the entry. (N.B.: Assertions that are not true, and that you make without regard for their truth, are known as bullshit.) Another problem is that you often "assert" it by saying something like "attributive use" without specifying "noun". —RuakhTALK 12:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Could you give me a specific instance? DCDuring TALK 16:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- An instance where the example usages are not attributive: I can picture one in my head — it was a slang word, and had two example sentences, one with attributive use, one with predicative use — but can't remember what the headword was. I'll think about it, maybe it will come to me. (I tried Googling for it, but no dice. It may have been back when Mglovesfun was deleting archived RFV discussions.) · An instance where it was implausible that an ===Adjective=== sense-line was motivated only by the existence of attributive uses: WT:RFV#bad form. (Also WT:RFV#brass, IMHO, despite your protestations there. And even if those sense-lines were motivated only by attributive uses, which is hard to imagine, it still wouldn't make sense to posit that the senses are only attributive use of the noun, if your goal is for people to find clearly-adjective cites instead of merely non-attributive cites.) · An instance where you used "attributive use", without "noun", as though it meant "non-adjective": WT:RFV#belt and suspenders. (Also Talk:family, though at least there it was replying to someone who had said "attributive use of the noun", so could be taken as an understandable-if-nonetheless-crappy shorthand for "what you just said".) · —RuakhTALK 18:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time. I'll look at them carefully. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- bad form - When (deprecated template usage) bad form (or many other nouns) is used as a predicate, I would argue that the predicative use provides no straightforward grammatical evidence as to whether it is a noun or adjective. I made an assumption that everyone knew this, though I had only laboriously learned in preparing Wiktionary:English adjectives (but not explained there). It might have helped if I had added a bad form#Noun. (Websters 1913 clearly defines good form and bad form as nouns in the run-in entries at "form". Cambridge Advanced Learners explicitly gives the PoS for "bad form" as noun.)
- brass could be considered a similar case, though I am less sure it is worth pursuing. "X is brass" could refer to (deprecated template usage) brass, (deprecated template usage) brass, or, in principle, (deprecated template usage) brass. Thus, I would look to more discriminating tests of adjectivity.
- From these cases alone, I think I see an emerging pattern: my making too many assumptions. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC) [If you can stand more of this, see User talk:DCDuring#Use of the word attributive in PoS discussions] DCDuring TALK 19:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time. I'll look at them carefully. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- An instance where the example usages are not attributive: I can picture one in my head — it was a slang word, and had two example sentences, one with attributive use, one with predicative use — but can't remember what the headword was. I'll think about it, maybe it will come to me. (I tried Googling for it, but no dice. It may have been back when Mglovesfun was deleting archived RFV discussions.) · An instance where it was implausible that an ===Adjective=== sense-line was motivated only by the existence of attributive uses: WT:RFV#bad form. (Also WT:RFV#brass, IMHO, despite your protestations there. And even if those sense-lines were motivated only by attributive uses, which is hard to imagine, it still wouldn't make sense to posit that the senses are only attributive use of the noun, if your goal is for people to find clearly-adjective cites instead of merely non-attributive cites.) · An instance where you used "attributive use", without "noun", as though it meant "non-adjective": WT:RFV#belt and suspenders. (Also Talk:family, though at least there it was replying to someone who had said "attributive use of the noun", so could be taken as an understandable-if-nonetheless-crappy shorthand for "what you just said".) · —RuakhTALK 18:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Could you give me a specific instance? DCDuring TALK 16:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Re: "When I object to a purported adjective, I assert that the usage that appears as an example or has motivated the creation of the adjective section is not the full range of true adjective usage but is merely attributive use of the noun": Yes, I've noticed that you assert that. One problem is that you assert that even when the example usages are not attributive, or even when it's implausible that attributive use is what motivated the entry. (N.B.: Assertions that are not true, and that you make without regard for their truth, are known as bullshit.) Another problem is that you often "assert" it by saying something like "attributive use" without specifying "noun". —RuakhTALK 12:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- (I should clarify one thing: some reference works consider tall in he is tall to be a "modifier", and I believe that's the traditional use of the term; but other reference works, such as CGEL, do not, considering "modifier" and "predicative" to be mutually exclusive. Since you've used "attributive use" in reference to predicative examples, I can't even begin to guess how you're using the term "modifier". If you're using it in the CGEL sense, and by "it" above you meant something like "'attributive use of nouns'", rather than just the "'attributive use'" in the comment you were replying to, then your definition was pretty accurate. Which is pretty bad, if so; defining it wrong and using it wrong is infuriating, but defining it right and using it wrong seems like lying.) —RuakhTALK 00:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's not a single term — it's SOP — but it means "use of the noun before another noun, which it modifies" (as in "chicken salad"). Importantly, it can be contrasted with "attributive use of the adjective" (as in "angry dog"); and also importantly, it can be contrasted with "predicative use of the noun" (as in "they made him president" or "digging trenches is work"), which also superficially looks like adjectives. So "attributive" does not imply "noun", and "modifier of another noun" does not imply "attributive". And I'm not just speaking abstractly; more than once I've seen you nominate an adjective section for deletion as "attributive use" when the entry itself had predicative usage examples. —RuakhTALK 00:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- When I go to a reference work that uses the term "attributive use of the noun", how should I read that? DCDuring TALK 23:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Re: your first sentence: No, not at all. Well, you use the term that way, so yes, that's what it refers to when you use it; but that's not what it means to everyone else. It's a crappy kind of shorthand, because it takes a useful real-world word with a well-defined and relevant meaning, and uses that word in a completely different way that seems superficially the same. I don't understand why you feel the need for a specific term that "refers to one specific kind of use of a noun, a use as a modifier of another noun", since in all the cases that you've used "attributive" for that, the term "noun" would actually have worked just as well; but as you obviously do feel the need for such a term, why can't you just make one up? That would be more honest, and would make it clear that you are expressing your own personal POV rather than anything that other editors should feel compelled to accept. —RuakhTALK 23:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Right, it refers to one specific kind of use of a noun, a use as a modifier of another noun, a kind of use it shares with adjectives. This is the use that is almost always the use indicated in any usage example provided and, I wager, is also almost always the motivation for a contributor adding an adjective PoS section where the noun has the same semantics as the adjective. If I am making a category error, I am doing it in the interest of consistency with the language I have learned here and as a kind of shorthand. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- When the appropriate sense already exists under the correct POS, then there's something a bit more "deletion"-y about removing the version under the wrong POS. Personally I still think BOLDness is the way to go even then, but at least RFD makes sense for that. (Alternatively, TR.) Also, this is neither here nor there, but I think you're misusing "attributive use" again. It does not mean "adjective-like use". —RuakhTALK 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Does that apply to attributive use of nouns that are claimed to be adjectives (subject to adjectivity tests)? Do most folks view these matters the same way? DCDuring TALK 20:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Preposition
[edit]Answers.com asks Is because a preposition? and finds that no, it is a conjunction. However, in recent years it is often being abused as a preposition, leaving out the "of" and any article (a, the): because rain, because Internet, because manners. When did this start? --LA2 (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Following up Because as noun. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Follow-up on the follow-up: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=9494
'because hungry'
[edit]HI, it should be 'because hunger', since prepositions are not used with adjectives, unless the term 'preposition' had borrowed the functions of other part of speech in internet jargon. --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- It's a strange usage, and, although it is most often followed by a noun, it may also be followed by an adjective or an interjection. This slang usage means that a subordinate clause follows, but all of the words of the clause are elided except for the principle word. "Why do you like fried chicken?" "Because 'Murica!" (because this is America). "Hey, let's go out and celebrate! Because yay!" (because yay, I'm happy). So it isn't an abbreviated form of because of, it's a slang adverbial usage. —Stephen (Talk) 16:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not according to the usage I've seen. I'm sure we can find at least a few examples of anything among the over 1 billion people using the internet. But very few people ever use an adjective as the object of a preposition, and most who do are referring to the adjective as the word it is rather than for its adjective meaning.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:E8D3:CA0A:6589:B937 01:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
"Because" is indeed comparable
[edit]The article describes "because" as "not comparable". This is misleading.
There is no "comparative" of the word "because" ("becauser" is not an English word). But "because" is indeed comparable. For example, "The reason I failed the the examination in school was more because I got no sleep the night before, than because I studied so little."2600:1700:E1C0:F340:E8D3:CA0A:6589:B937 00:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's not a comparison of "because", it's a comparison of the clause that contains "because". You could paraphrase your example as "more lack of sleep than too little studying". Chuck Entz (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Reasons that justify a statement as distinct from giving a reason for it
[edit]Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 reads as follows
Because and for are both used to introduce reasons that justify a statement as distinct from giving a reason for it: You must have forgotten to invite them, because they didn't turn up. He blushed, for he knew he had been caught out.
However, using the same two examples above, I do not know how I would "give a reason for a statement" instead. --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
preposition
[edit]RICH: hard to believe because ridiculous (informal) That's rich, coming from her! Microsoft® Encarta® 2009
--Backinstadiums (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Multiplicative feedback is a better, because less value-laden, term
[edit]What meaning is used here? Backinstadiums (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
French translation???
[edit]Who wrote this? Literally nobody uses this. If this is used in Canada, you should write it, but it's not used in Europe at all! SimsimUE (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)