Is it really OK to use “because of”?












5















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







share|improve this question







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.

























    5















    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







    share|improve this question







    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.























      5












      5








      5


      1






      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







      share|improve this question







      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






      share|improve this question







      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.











      share|improve this question







      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.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question






      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 6 hours ago









      zixuanzixuan

      1285




      1285




      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.






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5














          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.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1





            +1 And vice-versa. Because language.

            – StoneyB
            5 hours ago



















          2














          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".








          share|improve this answer
























          • 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
            5 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
            5 hours ago





















          0














          This modern charm is due to youth abbreviated text message and l a z y new culture. I will not be surprized at all when the observation will be grunted simply "umbrella...rain" #neanderthalspeak






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Profkool is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.
















          • 1





            'Because of' is a well-established turn of phrase, and you look pretty hypocritical when you can't spell 'surprise'.

            – Aeon Akechi
            1 hour ago











          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.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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

























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes








          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          5














          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.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1





            +1 And vice-versa. Because language.

            – StoneyB
            5 hours ago
















          5














          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.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1





            +1 And vice-versa. Because language.

            – StoneyB
            5 hours ago














          5












          5








          5







          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.






          share|improve this answer













          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.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          SamBCSamBC

          6,157426




          6,157426








          • 1





            +1 And vice-versa. Because language.

            – StoneyB
            5 hours ago














          • 1





            +1 And vice-versa. Because language.

            – StoneyB
            5 hours ago








          1




          1





          +1 And vice-versa. Because language.

          – StoneyB
          5 hours ago





          +1 And vice-versa. Because language.

          – StoneyB
          5 hours ago













          2














          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".








          share|improve this answer
























          • 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
            5 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
            5 hours ago


















          2














          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".








          share|improve this answer
























          • 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
            5 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
            5 hours ago
















          2












          2








          2







          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".








          share|improve this answer













          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".









          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 5 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
            5 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
            5 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
            5 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
            5 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
          5 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
          5 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
          5 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
          5 hours ago













          0














          This modern charm is due to youth abbreviated text message and l a z y new culture. I will not be surprized at all when the observation will be grunted simply "umbrella...rain" #neanderthalspeak






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Profkool is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.
















          • 1





            'Because of' is a well-established turn of phrase, and you look pretty hypocritical when you can't spell 'surprise'.

            – Aeon Akechi
            1 hour ago
















          0














          This modern charm is due to youth abbreviated text message and l a z y new culture. I will not be surprized at all when the observation will be grunted simply "umbrella...rain" #neanderthalspeak






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Profkool is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.
















          • 1





            'Because of' is a well-established turn of phrase, and you look pretty hypocritical when you can't spell 'surprise'.

            – Aeon Akechi
            1 hour ago














          0












          0








          0







          This modern charm is due to youth abbreviated text message and l a z y new culture. I will not be surprized at all when the observation will be grunted simply "umbrella...rain" #neanderthalspeak






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Profkool is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.










          This modern charm is due to youth abbreviated text message and l a z y new culture. I will not be surprized at all when the observation will be grunted simply "umbrella...rain" #neanderthalspeak







          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Profkool is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer






          New contributor




          Profkool is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered 2 hours ago









          ProfkoolProfkool

          1




          1




          New contributor




          Profkool is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          Profkool is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          Profkool is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.








          • 1





            'Because of' is a well-established turn of phrase, and you look pretty hypocritical when you can't spell 'surprise'.

            – Aeon Akechi
            1 hour ago














          • 1





            'Because of' is a well-established turn of phrase, and you look pretty hypocritical when you can't spell 'surprise'.

            – Aeon Akechi
            1 hour ago








          1




          1





          'Because of' is a well-established turn of phrase, and you look pretty hypocritical when you can't spell 'surprise'.

          – Aeon Akechi
          1 hour ago





          'Because of' is a well-established turn of phrase, and you look pretty hypocritical when you can't spell 'surprise'.

          – Aeon Akechi
          1 hour ago










          zixuan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          How to label and detect the document text images

          Image
          1 $begingroup$ This is what I mean as document text image: I want to label the texts in image as separate blocks and my model should detect these labels as classes. NOTE: This is how the end result should be like: The labels like Block 1, Block 2, Block 3,.. should be Logo, Title, Date,.. Others, etc. Work done: First approach : I tried to implement this method via Object Detection, it didn't work. It didn't even detect any text. Second approach : Then I tried it using PixelLink. As this model is build for scene text detection, it detected each and every text in the image. But this method can detect multiple lines of text if the threshold values are increased. But I have no idea how do I add labels to the text blocks. PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones = 'PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones' PIXEL_C...
          Read more

          Vallis Paradisi

          Image
          Coordinata: .mw-parser-output .geo-default,.mw-parser-output .geo-dms,.mw-parser-output .geo-dec{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .geo-nondefault,.mw-parser-output .geo-multi-punct{display:none}.mw-parser-output .longitude,.mw-parser-output .latitude{white-space:nowrap} 33°03′S 71°37′W  /  33.05°S 71.617°W  / -33.05; -71.617 Vallis Paradisi Res apud Vicidata repertae: Civitas : Chilia Numerus incolarum : 296 655 Zona horaria : UTC-4 Situs interretialis Nomen officiale : Valparaíso Gubernium Consilium : municipal council of Valparaíso Geographia Superficies : 401 600 000 Metrum quadratum Coniunctiones urbium Urbes gemellae : Ovetum , Badalona , Santa Fe , Ora longa , Sciamhaevum , Quantunia , Callao , Bat Yam , Melaka , Novorossiysk , Busan , Corduba , Odessa , Rosario , Malacca , Barcino , Soteropolis , Franciscopolis (California) , Guanajuato, Silao Tabula aut despectus Despectus in portum sinumque et urbem Vallis Paradisi Vallis Para...
          Read more

          Tabula Rosettana

          Image
          Tabula multilinguis Rosettana in Museo Britannico ostenditur. Tabula Rosettana, [1] etiam titulo OGIS 90 agnita, est stela decreto de rebus sacris in Aegypto anno 196 a.C.n. lato inscripta. Tabula iuxta Rosettam Aegypti, urbem in delta Nili et ad oram maris Mediterranei iacentem, anno 1799 a milite Francico reperta est. Inventio stelae, linguis duabus scripturisque tribus inscriptae, eruditis Instituti Aegypti statim nuntiata est; ibi enim iussu imperatoris Napoleonis eruditi omnium scientiarum (sub aegide Commissionis Scientiarum et Artium) properaverant cum expeditione Francica. Qua a Britannis mox debellata, tabula Rosettana Londinium missa hodie apud Museum Britannicum iacet. Textus Graecus cito lectus interpretationi textuum Aegyptiorum (in formis hieroglyphica et demotica expressorum) gradatim adiuvit. Denique textum plene interpretatus est Ioannes Franciscus Champollion. Ab opere eruditorum cumulativo coepit hodiernus scripturae hieroglyphicae linguaeque Aegyptiae a...
          Read more