przecinek przed BECAUSE

because after negated verbs

"They didn’t want her on the committee, because she was so outspoken" means roughly “Her outspokenness was their reason for not wanting her on the committee.”

"They didn’t want her on the committee because she was so outspoken" implies that they may in fact have wanted her on the committee but for some reason other than her outspokenness.

Może mi to ktoś wyjaśnić najlepiej na dodatkowych przykładach? Bo tego to w ogóle nie jestem jak na razie w stanie za dobrze zrozumieć. :)

Pozdrawiam,

Przemo

Przyłączam się do pytania Przema, ta pierwsza część jest jasna, ale ta druga jest lekko mówiąc NIELOGICZNA????

Forget those two sentences from bartleby.


I knew that President Nixon would resign that morning, because my sister-in-law worked in the White House and she called me with the news.

Without that comma, the sentence says that Nixon's resignation was the fault of my sister-in-law. Nixon did not resign because my sister-in-law worked in the White House, so we set off that clause to make the meaning clearly parenthetical.

"because after negated verbs.

When because follows a negated verb phrase, it must be preceded by a comma when the because clause explains why the event did not occur. They didn’t want her on the committee, because she was so outspoken means roughly “Her outspokenness was their reason for not wanting her on the committee.” When there is no comma, the because clause is included in what is being negated. Thus They didn’t want her on the committee because she was so outspoken implies that they may in fact have wanted her on the committee but for some reason other than her outspokenness."

To jest całość, więc teraz nasuwająmi siękolejne 2 pytania:

Może być przeciwek przed because w zdaniu twierdzącym?

A nie powinno być na odwrót? Że to właśnie z przecinkiem to zdanie oznacza, że zrezygnował z powodu pracy tej sisteer-in-law?

I knew that President Nixon would resign that morning because my sister worked in the White House and she called me with the news.

Without the comma, the sentence might suggest that President Nixon resigned because my sister worked in the White House.

Nie jestem pewna i szczerze mówiąc mało mnie to obchodzi i zagłębiać się w to nie będę.

Dla mnie, zdanie ma być zrozumiałe. Jeśli nie jest, to je napiszę inaczej a nie będę się zastanawiać czy postawić tam przecinek czy nie.

Głowę też dam, że mało kto zna tę zasadę (o ile to jest zasada) i jeszcze mniej osób się tym przejmuje.

To zdanie z Nixon'em jest wg mnie trochę inne.

To potrafię na polski przetłumaczyć i widzę różnicę w znaczeniu w polskim.

Tego drugiego [mojego z negacją] już nie za bardzo.

"American Heritage Book of English Usage" z tego wzięte :)

a ja ten drugi z jakiegoś angielskiego forum

Once you wrap your head around it, it does make sense.

The first part is easy. If, whatever follows "because", is the reason for what's stated in the first part of the sentence, then you need a comma.

When because follows a negated verb phrase, it must be preceded by a comma when the because clause explains why the event did not occur. They didn’t want her on the committee, because she was so outspoken means roughly “Her outspokenness was their reason for not wanting her on the committee.”

This is a little tougher to understand.

When there is no comma, the because clause is included in what is being negated. Thus They didn’t want her on the committee because she was so outspoken implies that they may in fact have wanted her on the committee but for some reason other than her outspokenness.

Zdanie bez przecinka będzie inaczej zaintonowane i nie będzie pauzy przed because.
They didn't want her on the committee because she was so outspoken. (They wanted her because she had innovative ideas.)

But, I could be wrong :)

It's very simple, actually. Bancombe explains it masterfully here :

https://www.ang.pl/a_comma_before_because_51766.html

Think about these examples :

>But when the main clause statement is in the negative, the comma is critical:
>Mark didn't survive (no comma) because he is intelligent; he survived (no >comma) because he was lucky.
>Mark didn't survive, because he is intelligent; he died, because the policemen >first had them take an intelligence test and then decided to killed the most >intelligent one of the bunch.

If you still don't understand after analyzing these, I don't know how to help. :P

Buncombe*

Where's the edit button? ;/