A doubt about English grammar

[Maximilianus]

Hello! Hello!

I have an issue concerning something a friend of mine has told me and I am not really sure he's right.
He says that a sentence like "Because of those that I love I will live forever" is incorrect, since he claims that a sentence cannot begin with "because".

Honestly, the sentence sounds just fine to me; I see no problem with it, but my friend does, though he's not being very specific about his reasons. I'm beginning to feel unsure... so what do you think? Can a sentence begin with "because"?

[Lynne50]

If you reverse it and put the subject first, it seems OK to me, but I'm not an expert. However, I tend to shy away from starting sentences with because. Many of my 1st graders will do that,because, it's just easier to explain themselves that way. Of course, in the case of your sentence, it seems like poetic license was taken and therefore may not be as scrutinized grammatically. I would be interested in learning the rights/wrongs of sentence construction.

[MANICHAEAN]

You shall know a word by the company it keeps.

[Maximilianus]

If you reverse it and put the subject first, it seems OK to me, but I'm not an expert. However, I tend to shy away from starting sentences with because. Many of my 1st graders will do that,because, it's just easier to explain themselves that way. Of course, in the case of your sentence, it seems like poetic license was taken and therefore may not be as scrutinized grammatically. I would be interested in learning the rights/wrongs of sentence construction.

Thank you Lynne, I was also thinking about a poetic license, though I'd like to have some references. Shifting word order is very common in poetry, though I can't remember any specific example or quote at this moment (I HOPE SOMEBODY DOES).

[billl]

Here's a recent (well, 2004!) pop song's lyrics. It is unpunctuated, but just listening to it, I would think it most natural to imagine that the phrase "Because of you..." is at the beginning of the sentences. Just check track four:

http://www.kellyclarkson.com/?content=music&album=33241

If you are writing a story, or an email, or talking to a friend, there isn't any reason to worry about putting "Because" at the beginning of a sentence. However, for a university paper, or an essay for a job application or something like that, you probably shouldn't begin sentences with "because." Why? Because it would be an opportunity for someone to think you don't know that "rule."

here's a non-profit education website that discusses the issue:
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm

And there's another good example at the end of this webpage from Purdue University:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/598/01/
By the way, sentence fragments are not acceptable in writing (in school, in a corporate office setting, etc.), but they can sometimes be a natural part of casual conversation or stylized fiction.

[billl]

Hello! Hello!
He says that a sentence like "Because of those that I love I will live forever" is incorrect, since he claims that a sentence cannot learn with because.


However, the sentence in your example should have a comma after "love."

[JBI]

Because I could not stop for death, he kindly stopped for me; the carriage held just but ourselves and immortality - Emily Dickinson. You can start with Because, there is no rule against it, but yeah as Billl put it, you'll need a comma.

[PortugalWillie]

If you were to start a sentence with because in a formal paper, you would lose a decent amount of points. It's a big no, no. That being said, if it is for a poem or any creative writing piece, you can do whatever you want.

However, if you break this rule and you do not realize you are breaking it, you lose all the power of breaking the rules. Understand it is a rule and break.

That's what I'd do.

[Maximilianus]

Thanks everyone for your kind help. Now I'll see if I can convince my friend that he was wrong.

@ billl: Your links have provided grammar details I had previously neglected, I must admit :blush:. Thank you so much! ;) ... and also for the punctuation remark.
@ JBI: Thank you very much for Emily Dickinson's quotation. :thumbs_up
@ PortugalWillie: Okay, let's break some rules sometimes. I agree on that ;)

[blazeofglory]

Hello! Hello!

I have an issue concerning something a friend of mine has told me and I am not really sure he's right.
He says that a sentence like "Because of those that I love I will live forever" is incorrect, since he claims that a sentence cannot learn with because.

Honestly, the sentence sounds just fine to me; I see no problem with it, but my friend does, though he's not being very specific about his reasons. I'm beginning to feel unsure... so what do you think? Can a sentence begin with because?

Grammar is a common agreement, a kind of concordance and if all accord his or her concordance it is grammar. The point is it must put across the idea straight and clear and the reader must find at ease with it. What else remains then?

[Maximilianus]

Grammar is a common agreement, a kind of concordance and if all accord his or her concordance it is grammar. The point is it must put across the idea straight and clear and the reader must find at ease with it. What else remains then?

Good point :thumbs_up

[Mr Endon]

Max, I was bashed in an Academic Essay Writing class by my own colleagues when they were reviewing an essay I had written. They said you can't start with 'because' or 'but'. My teacher told them they were too conservative and that it's actually quite acceptable now.

Only think of T.S. Eliot's 'Ash Wednesday':

Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn
[...]

Of course it's poetry. But still. There, this is a good example. 'But still'. If you want to be more forceful you can scrap the conventional way,


It's one of those things we thought would never happen to us, but it did.

and do it thus,


It's one of those things we thought would never happen to us. But it did.

As for comma/no comma, it depends (I think) on what you attach to because. JBI is right when he says that his examples require a comma. But the reason for this is that those are two phrases that are linked by 'because'. I don't think that in your case you need a comma, since your 'because' is referring to a noun phrase and not a proper phrase, i.e. a verb phrase.


He was writhing in pain and no one was around to help him. Because of this injury he'll never run again.

I think this is acceptable. I could be wrong, it's been over a year that I've had linguistics and I'm starting to forget things.

Also, billl is right, I'd only not risk it in a university paper. Academics are still very conservative grammarwise.

[Whifflingpin]

Perhaps its all in the name.
"Because" is a conjunction, so you expect it to join two thoughts, and it would be odd to start a sentence with it. It certainly works, however, in your last example, where the "because" does relate the two thoughts together. I think, however, you need the comma. You would not have needed it if you'd written "he'll never run again because of his injury."

In your example, where you use the full stop to separate the thoughts, it weakens the drama when you use the conjunction to try and connect them again.

"It's one of those things we thought would never happen to us. It did."

[MarkBastable]

Grammar is a common agreement, a kind of concordance and if all accord his or her concordance it is grammar. The


Actually, it's not. I recommend The Language Instinct by Stephen Pinkus, in which he puts a completely convincing argument for the idea that grammar is as intrinsic to human beings as nest-building is to pigeons. It's inherent to our ability to develop language, and the precepts are universally agreed not because we've settled on an arbitrary set of rules that seem to work, but because the rules are no more negotiable than the shared understanding of what's up and what's down. All naturally occurring languages - and even the made-up ones - adhere to the same fundamental rules of grammar, wherever they develop, and however isolated from other languages the speakers may be.

Grammatically, there's no reason to avoid starting a sentence with because. The conjoining job it does as a conjunction isn't physical - it doesn't have to be in the middle - it's conceptual - it simply needs to express the relationship between the clauses it conjoins. Because it's conceptual, it can be at the start. Or - it can be at the start because it's conceptual.

What dictates the position isn't its grammatical purpose but the emphasis the writer wishes to give.

Compare...


Because I was orphaned at the age of eight, I have always been self-reliant.

I have always been self-reliant, because I was orphaned at the age of eight.

[Maximilianus]

Max, I was bashed in an Academic Essay Writing class by my own colleagues when they were reviewing an essay I had written. They said you can't start with 'because' or 'but'. My teacher told them they were too conservative and that it's actually quite acceptable now.

Only think of T.S. Eliot's 'Ash Wednesday':

Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn
[...]

Of course it's poetry.
Apparently and unfortunately, many ones still regard the shifting of word order as strictly poetic, as though they were saying "poets speak weirdly and you shouldn't speak like them". I say it because I have heard some subtle similar comments, and others not so subtle... well we can't expect everyone to keep an open mind regarding language, I suppose. Fortunately your teacher has a more evolved mind.



As for comma/no comma, it depends (I think) on what you attach to because. JBI is right when he says that his examples require a comma. But the reason for this is that those are two phrases that are linked by 'because'. I don't think that in your case you need a comma, since your 'because' is referring to a noun phrase and not a proper phrase, i.e. a verb phrase.
Thanks for the clear explanation!



Also, billl is right, I'd only not risk it in a university paper. Academics are still very conservative grammarwise.
I believe this is a way of not letting a language grow, which is similar to killing it.


"It's one of those things we thought would never happen to us. It did."
So you say this variant is more dramatic?


Actually, it's not. I recommend The Language Instinct by Stephen Pinkus, in which he puts a completely convincing argument for the idea that grammar is as intrinsic to human beings as nest-building is to pigeons. It's inherent to our ability to develop language, and the precepts are universally agreed not because we've settled on an arbitrary set of rules that seem to work, but because the rules are no more negotiable than the shared understanding of what's up and what's down. All naturally occurring languages - and even the made-up ones - adhere to the same fundamental rules of grammar, wherever they develop, and however isolated from other languages the speakers may be.

Let me understand the concept. Does this mean that grammar is common to all human beings, like a natural process common to all of our minds, and that it is independent of every existing language?

[MarkBastable]

Let me understand the concept. Does this mean that grammar is common to all human beings, like a natural process common to all of our minds, and that it is independent of every existing language?


Pretty much, yeah. The corollary is that we don't make up a language and then figure out its grammar. We build languages in the way we do because of grammar.

[Maximilianus]

Pretty much, yeah. The corollary is that we don't make up a language and then figure out its grammar. We build languages in the way we do because of grammar.

Thank you Mark, now I got it!