Is it really OK to use “because of”?
I learned from a YouTube video that says ""because of" is not correct". But my friend argues that "because of" is correct. Also, I see a lot of people writing and saying "because of". Here is a example:
That's because of you.
So, is it actually correct to use "because of" or only native speakers think it's correct or it's not correct at all?
phrase-usage
asked 2 hours ago
zixuanzixuan
1135
New contributor
zixuan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I learned from a YouTube video that says ""because of" is not correct". But my friend argues that "because of" is correct. Also, I see a lot of people writing and saying "because of". Here is a example:
That's because of you.
So, is it actually correct to use "because of" or only native speakers think it's correct or it's not correct at all?
phrase-usage
asked 2 hours ago
zixuanzixuan
1135
New contributor
zixuan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I learned from a YouTube video that says ""because of" is not correct". But my friend argues that "because of" is correct. Also, I see a lot of people writing and saying "because of". Here is a example:
That's because of you.
So, is it actually correct to use "because of" or only native speakers think it's correct or it's not correct at all?
phrase-usage
asked 2 hours ago
zixuanzixuan
1135
New contributor
zixuan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I learned from a YouTube video that says ""because of" is not correct". But my friend argues that "because of" is correct. Also, I see a lot of people writing and saying "because of". Here is a example:
That's because of you.
So, is it actually correct to use "because of" or only native speakers think it's correct or it's not correct at all?
phrase-usage
phrase-usage
asked 2 hours ago
zixuanzixuan
1135
New contributor
zixuan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
zixuanzixuan
1135
New contributor
zixuan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
zixuanzixuan
1135
New contributor
zixuan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
zixuanzixuan
1135
asked 2 hours ago
zixuanzixuan
1135
1135
New contributor
zixuan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
zixuan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
zixuan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Actually, 'of' can be correct, in standard grammar, after because. It depends on what comes after that.
If the next part is a complete and potentially free-standing clause (say, a verb phrase), then you don't need (or want) of:
That's because I'm smart.
I'm hungry because I haven't eaten.
You're only saying that because I'm pretty.
I'm wet because it's raining.
But if the bit after it is a noun phrase, you need the of:
That's because of my asthma.
I'm angry because of your tone.
I'm happy because of you.
You're only saying that because of my looks.
You will also run into a lot of non-standard usage in some places using the of even where it isn't used in standard grammar.
answered 2 hours ago
SamBCSamBC
6,109426
1
+1 And vice-versa. Because language.
– StoneyB
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Both because and because of are correct in different contexts.
Because is used by itself when the cause is expressed as a clause:
He opened his umbrella because it was raining.
Because is used with of when the cause is expressed as a noun or nominal:
He opened his umbrella because of the rain.
However, there is a fairly new hip usage which drops the of.
He opened his umbrella because rain.
This usage is quite widespread, but not yet ready for formal registers. In her admirable article "English Has a New Preposition, Because Internet" Megan Garber describes it as "exceptionally bloggy and aggressively casual and implicitly ironic".
answered 2 hours ago
StoneyBStoneyB
171k10234414
I wouldn't call that so much a new usage as a bit of deliberately and creatively non-standard grammar. The fact it's 'wrong' is part of its charm.
– SamBC
2 hours ago
@SamBC That's where new usages come from. 600 years ago most of what traditionalists call subordinating conjunctions (including bare because with a content clause) were similar truncations of because/for/when/before/etc that [clause].
– StoneyB
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
zixuan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f198025%2fis-it-really-ok-to-use-because-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Actually, 'of' can be correct, in standard grammar, after because. It depends on what comes after that.
If the next part is a complete and potentially free-standing clause (say, a verb phrase), then you don't need (or want) of:
That's because I'm smart.
I'm hungry because I haven't eaten.
You're only saying that because I'm pretty.
I'm wet because it's raining.
But if the bit after it is a noun phrase, you need the of:
That's because of my asthma.
I'm angry because of your tone.
I'm happy because of you.
You're only saying that because of my looks.
You will also run into a lot of non-standard usage in some places using the of even where it isn't used in standard grammar.
answered 2 hours ago
SamBCSamBC
6,109426
1
+1 And vice-versa. Because language.
– StoneyB
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Actually, 'of' can be correct, in standard grammar, after because. It depends on what comes after that.
If the next part is a complete and potentially free-standing clause (say, a verb phrase), then you don't need (or want) of:
That's because I'm smart.
I'm hungry because I haven't eaten.
You're only saying that because I'm pretty.
I'm wet because it's raining.
But if the bit after it is a noun phrase, you need the of:
That's because of my asthma.
I'm angry because of your tone.
I'm happy because of you.
You're only saying that because of my looks.
You will also run into a lot of non-standard usage in some places using the of even where it isn't used in standard grammar.
answered 2 hours ago
SamBCSamBC
6,109426
1
+1 And vice-versa. Because language.
– StoneyB
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Actually, 'of' can be correct, in standard grammar, after because. It depends on what comes after that.
If the next part is a complete and potentially free-standing clause (say, a verb phrase), then you don't need (or want) of:
That's because I'm smart.
I'm hungry because I haven't eaten.
You're only saying that because I'm pretty.
I'm wet because it's raining.
But if the bit after it is a noun phrase, you need the of:
That's because of my asthma.
I'm angry because of your tone.
I'm happy because of you.
You're only saying that because of my looks.
You will also run into a lot of non-standard usage in some places using the of even where it isn't used in standard grammar.
answered 2 hours ago
SamBCSamBC
6,109426
Actually, 'of' can be correct, in standard grammar, after because. It depends on what comes after that.
If the next part is a complete and potentially free-standing clause (say, a verb phrase), then you don't need (or want) of:
That's because I'm smart.
I'm hungry because I haven't eaten.
You're only saying that because I'm pretty.
I'm wet because it's raining.
But if the bit after it is a noun phrase, you need the of:
That's because of my asthma.
I'm angry because of your tone.
I'm happy because of you.
You're only saying that because of my looks.
You will also run into a lot of non-standard usage in some places using the of even where it isn't used in standard grammar.
answered 2 hours ago
SamBCSamBC
6,109426
answered 2 hours ago
SamBCSamBC
6,109426
answered 2 hours ago
SamBCSamBC
6,109426
answered 2 hours ago
SamBCSamBC
6,109426
6,109426
1
+1 And vice-versa. Because language.
– StoneyB
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
+1 And vice-versa. Because language.
– StoneyB
2 hours ago
1
1
+1 And vice-versa. Because language.
– StoneyB
2 hours ago
+1 And vice-versa. Because language.
– StoneyB
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Both because and because of are correct in different contexts.
Because is used by itself when the cause is expressed as a clause:
He opened his umbrella because it was raining.
Because is used with of when the cause is expressed as a noun or nominal:
He opened his umbrella because of the rain.
However, there is a fairly new hip usage which drops the of.
He opened his umbrella because rain.
This usage is quite widespread, but not yet ready for formal registers. In her admirable article "English Has a New Preposition, Because Internet" Megan Garber describes it as "exceptionally bloggy and aggressively casual and implicitly ironic".
answered 2 hours ago
StoneyBStoneyB
171k10234414
I wouldn't call that so much a new usage as a bit of deliberately and creatively non-standard grammar. The fact it's 'wrong' is part of its charm.
– SamBC
2 hours ago
@SamBC That's where new usages come from. 600 years ago most of what traditionalists call subordinating conjunctions (including bare because with a content clause) were similar truncations of because/for/when/before/etc that [clause].
– StoneyB
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Both because and because of are correct in different contexts.
Because is used by itself when the cause is expressed as a clause:
He opened his umbrella because it was raining.
Because is used with of when the cause is expressed as a noun or nominal:
He opened his umbrella because of the rain.
However, there is a fairly new hip usage which drops the of.
He opened his umbrella because rain.
This usage is quite widespread, but not yet ready for formal registers. In her admirable article "English Has a New Preposition, Because Internet" Megan Garber describes it as "exceptionally bloggy and aggressively casual and implicitly ironic".
answered 2 hours ago
StoneyBStoneyB
171k10234414
I wouldn't call that so much a new usage as a bit of deliberately and creatively non-standard grammar. The fact it's 'wrong' is part of its charm.
– SamBC
2 hours ago
@SamBC That's where new usages come from. 600 years ago most of what traditionalists call subordinating conjunctions (including bare because with a content clause) were similar truncations of because/for/when/before/etc that [clause].
– StoneyB
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Both because and because of are correct in different contexts.
Because is used by itself when the cause is expressed as a clause:
He opened his umbrella because it was raining.
Because is used with of when the cause is expressed as a noun or nominal:
He opened his umbrella because of the rain.
However, there is a fairly new hip usage which drops the of.
He opened his umbrella because rain.
This usage is quite widespread, but not yet ready for formal registers. In her admirable article "English Has a New Preposition, Because Internet" Megan Garber describes it as "exceptionally bloggy and aggressively casual and implicitly ironic".
answered 2 hours ago
StoneyBStoneyB
171k10234414
Both because and because of are correct in different contexts.
Because is used by itself when the cause is expressed as a clause:
He opened his umbrella because it was raining.
Because is used with of when the cause is expressed as a noun or nominal:
He opened his umbrella because of the rain.
However, there is a fairly new hip usage which drops the of.
He opened his umbrella because rain.
This usage is quite widespread, but not yet ready for formal registers. In her admirable article "English Has a New Preposition, Because Internet" Megan Garber describes it as "exceptionally bloggy and aggressively casual and implicitly ironic".
answered 2 hours ago
StoneyBStoneyB
171k10234414
answered 2 hours ago
StoneyBStoneyB
171k10234414
answered 2 hours ago
StoneyBStoneyB
171k10234414
answered 2 hours ago
StoneyBStoneyB
171k10234414
171k10234414
I wouldn't call that so much a new usage as a bit of deliberately and creatively non-standard grammar. The fact it's 'wrong' is part of its charm.
– SamBC
2 hours ago
@SamBC That's where new usages come from. 600 years ago most of what traditionalists call subordinating conjunctions (including bare because with a content clause) were similar truncations of because/for/when/before/etc that [clause].
– StoneyB
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I wouldn't call that so much a new usage as a bit of deliberately and creatively non-standard grammar. The fact it's 'wrong' is part of its charm.
– SamBC
2 hours ago
@SamBC That's where new usages come from. 600 years ago most of what traditionalists call subordinating conjunctions (including bare because with a content clause) were similar truncations of because/for/when/before/etc that [clause].
– StoneyB
1 hour ago
I wouldn't call that so much a new usage as a bit of deliberately and creatively non-standard grammar. The fact it's 'wrong' is part of its charm.
– SamBC
2 hours ago
I wouldn't call that so much a new usage as a bit of deliberately and creatively non-standard grammar. The fact it's 'wrong' is part of its charm.
– SamBC
2 hours ago
@SamBC That's where new usages come from. 600 years ago most of what traditionalists call subordinating conjunctions (including bare because with a content clause) were similar truncations of because/for/when/before/etc that [clause].
– StoneyB
1 hour ago
@SamBC That's where new usages come from. 600 years ago most of what traditionalists call subordinating conjunctions (including bare because with a content clause) were similar truncations of because/for/when/before/etc that [clause].
– StoneyB
1 hour ago
add a comment |
zixuan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
zixuan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
zixuan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
zixuan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f198025%2fis-it-really-ok-to-use-because-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
