English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Running outdoors burns about five percent more calories than running on a tread mill, in part because there is greater wind resistance outdoors.

Apparently this is correct and there is no comma splice; could someone please explain why? Isn't the part after the comma an independent clause?

share|improve this question

closed as general reference by FumbleFingers, MετάEd, StoneyB, Matt E. Эллен, JSBձոգչ Oct 3 '12 at 18:48

This question is too basic; it can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

General Reference. Anyone who knows what a "comma splice" is should realise this isn't an example. In nearly all cases, a comma splice can be avoided by substituting a full stop; that clearly doesn't work in OP's example, because it isn't a comma splice. – FumbleFingers Aug 20 '12 at 3:15
up vote 5 down vote accepted

The words following the comma constitute a dependent clause, not an independent one. An independent clause must be able to stand alone without being subordinate to another clause. The clause in part because there is greater wind resistance outdoors has no meaning on its own. It is an adverbial clause of reason, explaining the claim made in the main clause.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.