Hi,
Do you think (1) works?
(1) Because the flowers were dry, she watered them.
cf. Since the flowers were dry, she watered them.
Thank you in advance
Seiichi MYOGA
My question is based on (2):
(2) She watered the flowers because they were dry.
(Quirk et al. 1985:1104)
I think so, yes.
Dear Beeesneees,
I appreciate your help and comments.
Can I ask one last question?
Do you think (4) also works?
(4) Because she’s my friend, she must have put in a good word for me.
cf. She must have put in a good word for me(,) because she’s my friend.
Seiichi MYOGA
(4) is based on this:
(3) Since she’s my friend, she must have put in a good word for me.
(Quirk et al. 1985:1104)
What bothers me is that Quirk et al. (1985:1104) say (1) and (4) are examples of “Reason and Consequence: the construction expresses the speaker’s [color=red]inference of a connection.”
I thought we can’t put the “because”-clause at the sentence-initial position if the conjunction means the speaker’s [color=red]inference (*Because the ground is wet, it has rained.)
If (4) works too, it might mean that different people mean different things when they speak of “inference.”
Hello Seiichi,
This particular sentence interesting with regard to the comma.
Without the comma, I would understand that “she put in a good word for me” is known by the speaker to be factual. Thus, “because she is my friend” provides the speaker’s inferred reason for a past fact.
With the comma, I would understand that “she put in a good word for me” is not known to be factual but rather is an assumption. Thus, “because she is my friend” would be a/the reason that the speaker has made that assumption.
[color=darkblue]___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[size=75]“One of the prevailing sources of misery and crime is in the generally accepted assumption, that because things have been wrong a long time, it is impossible they will ever be right.” ~ John Ruskin[/size]
Dear Esl_Expert,
I appreciate your help and comments.
So whether the “because”-clause is a disjunct or an adjunct depends on the presence of the comma.
Quirk et al. (1985) would say that the “since”-clause in (3) is a content disjunct, which others call an “attitudinal” disjunct.
(3) Since she’s my friend, she must have put in a good word for me. (Quirk et al. 1985:1104)
Quirk et al. (1985) make no mention, however, of whether the conjunction “because” can also work as a content disjuct.
Do you think any of (4), (5a) and (5b) sounds natural?
(4) Because she’s my friend, she must have put in a good word for me.
(5) a. Because she’s my friend, [color=red]I think she must have put in a good word for me.
b. Because she's my friend, [color=red]I think she put in a good word for me.
My real interest is in something close to (5), but I don’t know where they belong in terms of Quirk et al.'s five categories of reason. (And as for (4), if this is OK, it will probably mean the “because”-clause is a content disjunct. If it is a style disjunct, you can’t put the “because”-clause before its main clause. And if it is an adjunct, the “because”-clause can be the focus of negation and interrogation, or the answer to the question beginning with “Why.” I assume (i) is wrong and instead we have to use (ii) in order that the conversation makes sense. So, if (4) works, the “because”-clause should be a content disjunct.)
(i) A: Why must she have put in a good word for you?
B: Because she’s my friend.
(ii) A: Why do you think she must have put in a good word for you?
B: Because she’s my friend.
Seiichi MYOGA
What is correct is that … Quirk et al. (1985:1104) say color=red and color=red are examples of “Reason and Consequence: the construction expresses the speaker’s inference of a connection.”
I apologize for confusion. I sent my previous post just before I went to bed. I always check my post before posting (and again immediately after that), but somehow I overlooked this.