comma

@JessyA posted:

Can you please tell me: when is it advisable to use a comma before the word "because" when stating the reason of something? Since I've already seen contexts with and without a comma before because, and it's so confusing to me.

Hello, Jessy—Generally speaking, we do not use a comma before a "because"-clause when the "because"-clause is the focus of the sentence, i.e., when the main point of the sentence is to give an answer to the question "Why?"

• John was absent yesterday because he was sick.
• John was hired because he was the most qualified candidate.

Often, in the contexts in which such sentences are uttered or written, the information conveyed by the main clause (that John was absent yesterday, that he was hired) is already known; the "because"-clause gives new information.

When a "because"-clause is set off by a comma, the information presented in the "because"-clause is treated as being of separate, subordinate, or equal importance with respect to the information conveyed in the main clause.

• John will be calling in an hour, because he has a question.
• John likes that restaurant the most, because it has the best wine.

When the main clause is negative, a comma (or the lack thereof) before the main clause carries a special significance, though not everybody is aware of it. It is an advanced comma rule. Consider the following sentences:

• Mary wasn't hired because she has a degree in marketing.
• Mary wasn't hired, because she has a degree in marketing.

Technically, the sentence without the comma expresses that she did get hired, but the reason was not that she had a degree in marketing; she was hired for some other reason. "Not" effectively negates the "because"-clause.

Technically, the sentence with the comma expresses that she did not get hired, and the reason she didn't is that she has a degree in marketing. The interviewers were looking for someone with a different sort of degree.

All right, I understand the first and the third explanations, but I can't understand the second one. I'm sorry. So, could you please walk me through that?

As for these sentences that you gave me as examples:

• John will be calling in an hour, because he has a question.
• John likes that restaurant the most, because it has the best wine.

I can only see the because-clause as the main point of the sentence, and answer "why" John will be calling or "why" he likes that restaurant the most.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you so much for your patience and time.

@JessyA posted:

All right, I understand the first and the third explanations, but I can't understand the second one. I'm sorry. So, could you please walk me through that?

As for these sentences that you gave me as examples:

• John will be calling in an hour, because he has a question.
• John likes that restaurant the most, because it has the best wine.

I can only see the because-clause as the main point of the sentence, and answer "why" John will be calling or "why" he likes that restaurant the most.

The comma before "because" is not necessary in those sentences. Indeed, if you were the writer and you did, as you say, understand the "because"-clause as the main point, then it would not make sense to use a comma there.

With those two examples, I was creating sentences that someone might use both to inform someone of something for the first time and to inform them of the reason for that thing. What follows "because" could be a separate sentence.

If you see the "because"-clause as the main point, then you are likely presupposing that the hearer/reader already knows that John will be calling in an hour or that John likes that restaurant the most. That need not be the case.