Because

I. Because answers the questions Why? and How?

Because is a subordinating conjunction; it is used to introduce a dependent clause (Allen; Lunsford). More particularly, because tends to introduce adverbial dependent clauses that answer the question why? When because answers the question why, it relates directly to the original statement, as in I came [why did you come?] because I wanted to see you (Allen).

Non-because adverbial clauses may answer questions like where? when? to what degree? and in what manner? Of course, these questions are not usually explicitly stated in the sentence. Dependent clauses that begin with that, which, who, and whom are not adverbial clauses (Siegel).

Because sometimes behaves a bit like the coordinating conjunction for (see Section IV-B). In this role, it may introduce a dependent clause by answering the question how? For example, I know he committed suicide,[how did you know that he committed suicide?] because his wife told me (Allen). Notice that you could probably swap a for for the because and still be fine.

II. Because at the beginning

Mrs. Harrison and your other junior high teachers were wrong. Prepositions fit fine at the end of sentences, because makes a swell first word (Allen; The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition), and there is one space after a period, not two. It’s also acceptable to use because after an introductory it’s, that’s, that is, etc: It’s because these socialist values are apparently being incorporated into the party doctrine that many fascists are changing their political allegiance (Allen). It’s not a great sentence, but it follows the rules.

By the way, the reason that Mrs. Harrison decried the use of because at the beginning of a sentence may have been that she wanted you to avoid separating a main clause and a subordinate clause into two separate sentences (e.g., I don’t want to go to work. Because I’d rather sleep) (Louisa). See the end of section IV.

Mrs. Harrison may have been thwarting the unholy communion of because and a noun clause (i.e., any clause or part of a sentence that stands in place of a noun(Bowles)). Grammarians argue that because should only introduce adverbial clauses (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition), and naïve students may be tempted to write sentences like: Because the man is guilty (,) does not mean that he should be executed (Bowles), Because we don’t explicitly ask these questions doesn’t mean they aren’t answered (Allen), or Just because he thinks it a good idea doesn’t mean it’s a good idea (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). This form is fine for colloquial speech, but in addition to breaking some obscure rule of grammar, this kind of construction is impractical: it uncomfortably delays the main clause (Allen). Therefore, in formal writing do not use a clause beginning with because as the subject of the sentence (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition).

III. Commas

Note the position of the commas in the section I examples. A comma should rarely be used when because answers the question why? It may be appropriate to precede a sentence-ending why?/because-clause with a comma if (a) the reason that follows the because is parenthetical (Siegel), (b) the writer is engineering an artificial or dialectical pause between the main statement and the reason, or (c) because is joined with of to form some kind of mutant prepositional phrase (this is probably wrong). I made those last two up. Here’s an example of a parenthetical (or prepositional phrase?) because: He’d have to watch his step…not to make a hash of things, because of over-anxiety. Notice that if you read the sentence aloud, it is natural to pause before “because of over-anxiety” (Allen), thus the comma.

Another instance when a comma may precede because is when it is used to answer the question how? For instance, in the last example of section I, the comma helps readers understand that because is not answering the question “Why did he commit suicide?”

And what about when because begins the sentence? There seems to be a nearly universal trend toward separating sentence-beginning adverbial clauses (especially ones that begin with because) from independent clauses with a comma (Rozakis; Siegel). However, occasionally you stumble across sentences like this: Because of the deterioration of the sugar in the blood it was decided, after consultation, to carry out an exchange blood transfusion (Allen). Notice there’s no comma. I suspect that the lack of a comma may be the author’s attempt to avoid a clunky comma party (Elisabetta).

Commas may also be necessary in sentences where the initial statement is negative. Please see Section VI for more information.

IV. Confusion with other words

A. Because versus As and Since

Because introduces a direct reason: I was sleeping because I was tired. (Notice that there’s no comma—it’s answering the question why?) In contrast, causal since (which has been a part of the English language since before Chaucer wrote in the fourteenth century) is useful as a slightly milder way of expressing causation than because. That is, since is appropriate when the first event in a sequence leads logically to the second event but was not its direct cause (Goldstein; The Chicago Manual of Style). The usage for as appears to be the same as since: As/Since I was tired, I was sleeping (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition; Dictionary.Com Unabridged (V 1.0.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary)—that is, it reads more like: Because I was tired, I happened to be sleeping.

As should be avoided when it could be construed to mean while.

Bad: She couldn’t answer her page as she was examining a critically ill patient.

Less bad: She couldn’t answer her page, as she was examining a critically ill patient.

Good: She couldn’t answer her page because she was examining a critically ill patient (Iverson et al.).

Since should be avoided when it could be construed to mean from the time of or from the time that (Goldstein; Iverson et al.; The Chicago Manual of Style; Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association).

Bad: She had not been able to answer her page since she was in the clinic.

Good: She had not been able to answer her page because she was in the clinic (Iverson et al.).

All three terms (because, as, and since) can be used at the beginning of a sentence. However, when these words are used to start a sentence, as/since tend to emphasize the main statement whereas because emphasizes the reason (Allen). See Section II.

B. Because versus For

Because and for may be interchangeable. However, it’s helpful to understand which attributes of because are the most amplified by for. In the sentence I know he committed suicide, for/because his wife told me, for/because answer the question How? (Allen). In this sentence, I was sleeping, for I was tired, for introduces the reason, proof, or justification like an afterthought or a parenthetical statement (Dictionary.Com Unabridged (V 1.0.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary). (Notice that there’s a comma in both examples; for is a subordinate conjunction (i.e., for, or, so, nor, and, yet, but), so the comma preceding the reason is essential.

C. Because versus Inasmuch as

This phrase implies concession; the main statement is true in view of the circumstances introduced by this conjunction: Inasmuch as I was tired, it seemed best to sleep (Dictionary.Com Unabridged (V 1.0.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary). Inasmuch as is a rather formal and awkward expression—avoid it! It means “to the extent that,” “in so far as,” or more simply, “in view of the fact that,” and “since.” The preferred style is two words, not four (Allen).

D. Because (of) versus Due to

Use due to when the main statement or effect is (1) stated as a noun and (2) appears before the verb be. Use because when the main statement or effect is stated as a phrase (Allen; The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition; Iverson et al.; Lunsford).

For example, due to is preferred in this sentence: His paranoia was due to the marshmallow candies that he was eating. The due to needs a noun or pronoun as its antecedent and, in this case, that noun is his paranoia. But because of is preferred in this sentence: The turtle-man was sweating profusely because of the shell on his back (Lunsford).

Other examples of due to:

Pay Caesar what is due to Caesar, and pay God what is due to God.

Incorrect speed is generally due to a word idler wheel.

It was due to start at four o’clock.

Part of her happiness, her unaltered sense of her own superiority, was due to…(Allen).

This can get confusing:

There was a delay due to bad weather – it’s an inverted version of The delay was due to bad weather, so it’s fine. However, if you change the sentence a bit more—The train was delayed due to bad weather—you’re in trouble. The due is no longer grammatically attached and is therefore unacceptable (Allen).

E. Because (of) versus Due to the fact that

Due to the fact that is long, confusing, and a grammatical mess. Therefore, always consider because (of) before using this awkward phrase.

That this slippage is so slight is due to the fact that because the other staff have worked a great deal of extra time.

*In cases where there is a strong link between due and an antecedent noun, due to the fact that may be preferred: The success of the tampon is partly due to the fact that it is hidden (Allen).

V. The reason is … because

Avoid this construction; it is redundant (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition; Allen). The definition of because is “for the reason that” (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition), so the sentence The reason for this was because I was the coolest man in the world literally means The reason for this was for the reason that I was really redundant (Allen). Another reason to avoid the reason/because construction is that because can only introduce adverbial clauses and that reason is requires completion by a noun clause (see last paragraph of Section II) (Bowles). Writers should also avoid the phrase the reason why. In both cases the sentences can easily be rewritten using that instead of because (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition).

VI. Because and negatives

The last tricky characteristic of because is its use in negative sentences. For instance, what does this sentence mean: I do not eat chicken because of the feathers? Given the content of the sentence, we might assume that the speaker chooses not to eat chicken and that the reason he or she avoids chicken is because of poultry feathers. After all, who would want to eat feathers? However, without a comma between chicken and because, the sentence technically means something entirely different; the current sentence should technically be interpreted to mean I do eat chicken but I don’t eat it because of the feathers.

If it’s a negative statement with a valid reason for that negative statement, use a comma:

I do not eat chicken [negative statement], and the reason is the feathers [valid reason]

I do not eat chicken, because of the feathers. Notice the pause between chicken and because.

If it’s a positive statement with an invalid reason for that positive statement, don’t use a comma: I do not eat chicken [positive statement], but the reason that I eat it is not feathers [invalid reason]. I do not eat chicken because of the feathers. Notice that there’s no pause in this version; in fact, it almost sounds like there should be more to the sentence like I do not eat chicken because of the feathers, I eat it because of the tasty strips of beak.

Again, the context will often make the meaning clear (e.g., this sentence technically requires a comma but still meets Fowler’s approval even without a comma: Many people do not attend church because they are bored by ritualistic services), but a comma certainly helps oust ambiguity: The toy is not for every customer, because it does require some patience.

VII. Other subordinating conjunctions (see Lunsford)

VIII. Other compound prepositions (see Lunsford)

IX. References

Allen, Robert, ed. Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

Bowles, Richard. "Don't Use "Because" To Start a Noun Clause". November 30, 2006 2006. <http://richardbowles.tripod.com/gmat/sc/sc_type6.htm>.

The Chicago Manual of Style. 15th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Dictionary.Com Unabridged (V 1.0.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Random House, Inc, 2006.

Elisabetta. "Beginning Sentences With "Because" ". Ed. Andrew David, 2006.

Goldstein, Norm, ed. The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, 2000.

Iverson, Cheryl, et al., eds. American Medical Association Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1998.

Louisa. "Beginning Sentences With "Because"." Ed. Andrew David, 2006.

Lunsford, Andrewa A. The Everday Writer. Second ed. Boston: Bedford, 2001.

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2001.

Rozakis, Laurie E. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Grammar and Style Penguin Group, 2003.

Siegel, Kevin A. "Writing: Commas, Commas, Commas." I Came, I Saw, I Learned... IconLogic, 2006. Vol. 2006.

in limbo over purgatory

Fire licks their shins as they struggle upward. Haunting images of their past sins heckle them as they climb. Finally, just as the pain reaches intolerability, a man in a shimmering white robe offers a helping hand and carries the relieved figures through the pearly gates of Heaven. That’s how I imagined it anyway, but David Brown’s article, No Heaven Without Purgatory, presents a Purgatory coinciding with both logic and basic Christian doctrine. The article intelligently blueprints the necessity of Purgatory in Christian theology, surprisingly extracting my view of Purgatory from the imagination and delivering it into the realm of possibility.

As he begins his article, Brown identifies two competing models of Purgatory. According to Brown, the popular notion of Purgatory today is as “a second chance for those of whom it might be argued…had no proper opportunities in this life” (447). However, rather than supporting this catch-all conception of Purgatory, Brown defends the “traditional” view of Purgatory. In this view there are two essential characteristics to Purgatory. First, Purgatory is a “place of moral preparation (not trial) for those whose lives and decisions had already destined them for Heaven” (447). Using a three-pronged set of arguments, Brown spends most of the article supporting this view. Then he finishes No Heaven Without Purgatory by describing the second attribute of Purgatory: the intense pain of self recognition that is in some manner a necessary atonement for our moral mistakes.

Brown begins with the “temporal argument” which offers a comparison between our moral character at death and our moral character in Heaven. Brown asserts that at death we are fallen, bearing the inescapable mark of human sinfulness. Conversely, in Heaven, by its very definition, we will be perfect. Since both premises seem solid, they pose an interesting dilemma; either we immediately jump from one moral state to another or there is period of transformation between the two states. Delving into the nature of our human state, Brown claims that as humans we exist through a process of continual change. Under such circumstances, we must experience a process like Purgatory following death, for an instantaneous shift from sin to perfection would defy our very humanness (447-450).

Next, using the “argument from identity,” Brown builds connections between our sense of self and the necessary existence of Purgatory. He suggests that our sense of self is founded primarily on our past. Thus, in the event of an instant transformation following death, Brown contends that while we would retain our past memories, we would find them fully incompatible with the perfection in which we then rest. In other words, our heavenly self would experience an inconceivable lack of connection with the sin of its previous self. Thus, according to Brown, an intermediary state like Purgatory would be necessary to sustain our sense of connection, without which we would fundamentally cease to be human (451-452).

The final characteristic that Brown ascribes as important to our humanness in the issue of Purgatory is our free will. Similar to our class discussions of evil, Brown explains that “morally and psychologically, respect for persons is thus held to take precedence over an objectively right decision” (453). Therefore, Brown entitles this argument the “argument from self-acceptance,” declaring that for us to enter heaven we must accept God’s divine grace. However, Brown argues that if we are suddenly whisked from death to heaven’s door, there is no opportunity to make such a decision (453-454).

Finally, Brown brings the article to a close by explaining the nature of the pain inherent in Purgatory. He draws a careful distinction between pain as a punishment and pain as a cleansing device. Christ already paid the punishment. In this system of Purgatory, pain functions internally as we come to acknowledge our sins and how we could have avoided hurting others. Our only penalty in Brown’s system of Purgatory is that of self-recognition

Overall, Brown’s vision of Purgatory is very compelling, yet it is not flawless. Throughout No Heaven Without Purgatory, he raises numerous objections which he later solves. Nonetheless, after reading the article, I stumbled upon two additional objections that Brown did not seem to address. I will begin by applying an objection to the “temporal argument.” According to this argument, we must undergo a process of change following death. However, the assumption that this process of change must be Purgatory seems to be false. The doctrine Purgatory springs from ideas concerning Heaven and Hell. These ideas originate in the Bible, but there is no mention of Purgatory. Instead the Bible speaks of a “final judgment.” During this event, God will judge mankind and Jesus Christ will defend us. Similar to an earthly court case, the “final judgment” will be both more than sufficient to clear our name and produce the necessary inner cleansing. This objection also stands its ground under the “argument from identity.” Postulating an event like the “final judgment” preserves our sense of identity with our earthly life. Through the event of our judgment, continuity between our earthly life and our life in heaven is maintained.

At first, this objection seems to offer a plausible counter-example to Purgatory. It seems to overcome the pitfalls of previous objections cited in the text. Both the objections raised in the text to the “temporal argument” insisted upon an abrupt shift between death and Heaven. However, the “final judgment” reaffirms the necessity of growth and change to our humanness. It is during this trial that we are confronted with our deeds and subsequently forgiven. Furthermore, because the “final judgment” is an alternative to Purgatory rather than an abrupt means of moving from death to Heaven, it also preserves our connectedness as discussed in the “argument from identity.” Nonetheless, the “final judgment” objection is not invincible. Although it appears to offer the inner change necessary to convert one from sin to purity, the case for inner change is more explicit in the traditional view of Purgatory, which by its definition entails an inner purgation of sorts. The “final judgment” objection also falls into trouble because of its close similarity to Purgatory; both are temporal states in which one is forced to undergo self-recognition prior to reaching Heaven. Therefore the two events could be misconstrued as identical. However, by returning to Brown’s definition of “traditional” Purgatory, we discover that unlike the “final judgment” Purgatory is not a trial.

Another brief challenge to the “argument from identity” which is not mentioned in the text is an objection to the notion that we “can identify ourselves only through continuity with our past” (451). The following objection also contradicts Brown’s claim that without an intermediate “stage between earth and heaven, the resurrected individual could have no reasonable grounds for believing himself to be the same person” as his earthly self (451). On the contrary, it seems that as earthly humans one means of personal identification is via our personality. Therefore, if there was an abrupt discontinuity between our state of purity in Heaven and our memories of sin, we would still share a significant link between our new selves and past selves. I believe this is an important oversight on the part of Brown and a noteworthy objection. Brown must either dismiss such an objection as false or modify his position. To reject the fact that personality is a fundamental trait of human beings seems to contradict both psychological research and common sense. Thus, it seems that Brown would be forced to change his position to one stating that “the resurrected individual would have insufficient grounds for believing himself the same person as” his earthly self. Unfortunately for Brown, the term “insufficient” is more of an opinion than an absolute and therefore it is less evident that an intermediate state is necessary.

Ultimately, despite these objections, Brown’s theory of Purgatory still seems to stand strong. Though the “final judgment” may offer a reasonable alternative to the traditional view of Purgatory, it does not seem to cast the idea of Purgatory into the graveyard of false doctrines. In fact, it may be possible for the two views to exist in harmony. Likewise, although my second objection may weaken the “argument from identity” it leaves Brown’s remaining arguments unscathed. In conclusion, I found Brown’s support for the necessary existence of a “place of moral preparation” through intense pain and self-recognition to be more than sufficient to warrant shifting my view of Purgatory from fantasy to possibility.

the road.cormac mccarthy

i intend to write a paragraph blurb on this book for image update. at that time i'll replace this quote. until then, i encourage you to go read it.

the 17 point scale endorses a no vote on initiative 91 (i-91) rough draft

what is i-91? well, i-91 demands that the city receive fair value in any lease deals with for-profit sports organizations.

before i explain why this initiative is electoral garbage, let me offer two less relevant bits of insight. first, please recognize that i'm a political squirrel. in other words, the political corner of my brain is small and rather undeveloped. moreover, i spend most of my time running around looking for peanuts, so i don't nurture what little understanding that i may have--don't expect a flawless, bullet-proof argument. second, despite my political naivete, i feel that most of the propaganda against i-91 takes the wrong approach. arguments against i-91 tend to stress the fact that a yes vote is a big blow to local area sports. although this is true, i think it's a shame that i-91 rebuttals don't do more to appeal to non-sports fans. yes, a no vote is essentially an angry kick in colletive seattle sonic groin, but if you're a sports fan, i presume that you're already voting no on this initiative. thus, it makes more sense to begin by addressing the issue asportically.

who's supporting this initiative? citizens for more important things. i have to hand it to them: the bankrollers for this initiative have given themselves a clever title (but their website is messy and irritating; i felt like they were trying to sell me something. blechh!). cfmit was founded by nick licata (my least favorite city councilmember. earlier this year, president licata was quoted as saying that the sonics had "close to zero" cultural value in the city of seattle) and is currently led by chris van dyk, who, incidentally, isn't even a seattle resident. cfmit has noble aims. they hope that by slaying professional sports, money will be diverted to education and social services.

i-91 is EVIL!!!

hi, i'm i-91, well, not really, but if i were, you shouldn't vote for me. i'm evil!!!