It was supported by stating that a reliable fabric supplier has been found and that a major competitor is no longer making alpaca overcoats, because of which demand will be high.
Why is there a comma in this sentence?
-
Imagine reading the sentence out loud without making a pause!– Kate BuntingCommented Jun 4, 2023 at 8:10
-
Commaed and commaless examples seem equally popular in Ludwig.guru's corpus. Like Kate, I'd include it in this lengthy example: give the narrator a break.– Edwin AshworthCommented Jun 4, 2023 at 14:26
-
2If you didn't write the example sentence, then you should cite the source. (If you did write it, then please say so.)– MarcInManhattanCommented Jun 5, 2023 at 3:45
-
1Because it's a non-restrictive relative clause, and these always need comma intonations. Say it out loud both ways and you'll see.– John LawlerCommented Nov 4, 2023 at 14:55
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
"Because of which demand will be high" is a relative clause whose antecedent is most likely the phrase "a major competitor is no longer making alpaca overcoats." Relative clauses whose antecedents are themselves entire clauses characteristically use the relative pronoun "which" and are surrounded by commas.
"Because" here is not introducing a subordinate clause on its own; instead, it's part of the prepositional phrase "because of which," which contains a pied-piped relative pronoun.
Generally speaking, a comma before "because" tends to be dealer's choice, more an issue of style than grammar and the choice to put one becoming more likely when it eliminates possible ambiguity.
At first, I considered that it's not what it appears, not simply a subordinate clause introduced by "because" but a nonrestrictive relative clause with an inverted structure that doesn't put "which" first, which would nonetheless require a comma, but it isn't. You can tell it isn't because you can readily substitute "that" for "which" and have it mean the exact same thing. Since "that" only introduces restrictive relative clauses and does not require a comma before the clause and since an alternate meaning of "which" is "that," even if the relative pronoun were the operative word and made that a relative clause, it still wouldn't require a comma, making any statement of "should" not on solid ground, but I ultimately decided that's not what it is. Just know that it wouldn't have mattered even if I had decided that's what it is or if that were what it is.
So why is it there? Because the writer chose to put it there, maybe feeling the sentence reads easier with it there than without it.
But "should" it be there? It "should" if the writer is obliged to follow a style guide that requires it. Otherwise, it's a matter of opinion since it's a matter of style, not grammar, making "should" an awfully strong word, probably too strong a word.
I will say that I like it there. I do think it reads easier with it than without it.
answered Jun 4, 2023 at 16:13
-
2Replacing the "which" with "that" gives you a comma splice.– alphabetCommented Jun 7, 2023 at 3:11
-
No, it doesn't. You're reading it wrong. You're reading it like it's a relative clause, like "that" has the meaning it has when we pronounce it like it rhymes with "mat," not like it has the meaning it has when we pronounce it like it rhymes with "met," which is how it'd be used here to mean what the "which" clearly means in that sentence, which is an idiomatic usage similar to when someone says, "Because of that it's cold outside, you should wear a coat," or says it's inversion, "You should wear a coat because of that it's cold outside." Commented Jun 26, 2023 at 3:23
-
The way that you're reading it, along with whomever else gave me that downvote, is reversing cause and effect, reversing what is being conveyed as the cause and the effect. It's an easy mistake to make, especially when one doesn't understand the subject matter or when focus on analyzing it mechanically for grammar has distracted one from internalizing its meaning, sort of like failing to see the forest for the trees. Commented Jun 26, 2023 at 3:45
-
1In what dialect is "You should wear a coat because of that it's cold outside" grammatically correct? Certainly not in American English.– alphabetCommented Jun 26, 2023 at 3:50
-
By the way, I would not disagree that using "which" idiomatically that way in this context feels clumsy, like something a kid would say casually and not what an adult would say formally. I suppose that may also be a contributing factor, because that one might not expect the usage in the given context. See what I did there? But that is neither here nor there since the OP isn't asking about that but about the comma usage. Commented Jun 26, 2023 at 3:51