For VS. Because of

0

I feel like 'because of' and 'for' as a meaning of cause and reason can be interchangeable like 'because' and 'for' but I know that there are collocations. What do native English speakers think about my feeling? Thank you as usual and have a good day.

 

Cf. We could hardly see it for/ because of the mist 

asked Aug 17 '12 at 22:49 Hans Contributor

2 answers


0

As far as I know, "for" is a coordinative conjunction, while "because" is subordinative

link comment answered Nov 10 '14 at 20:30 Mari New member
0

OP is asking about "because of," not because. "Because of" is a compound preposition, and introduces a prepositional phrase.

 

Because of and for are very similair. The one would almost always "work" in a sentence where we might prefer the other, but they're not quite the same.

 

"Steph Curry is famous for his shooting." His shooting is a famous aspect of Steph Curry. His shooting is famous/famed. "Steph Curry is famous for his pubescent looks." This isn't why he's famous; it's just one thing about him that is famous.

 

"Steph Curry is famous because of his shooting." The reason Steph Curry is famous is something to do with his shooting. If we wrote "Steph Curry is famous because of his pubescent looks," it would imply that that's the main reason he's famous, and his shooting is less important.

 

"For" can have another meaning. "Mylene shot the kangaroo because of Darryl." We don't really know why Mylene shot the kangaroo, just that it had something to do with Darryl. "Mylene shot the kangaroo for Daryl." Mylene shot the kangaroo to in some fashion help/assist Darryl. For Darryl's sake.

link comment answered Sep 01 '16 at 22:05 Jonathan Lovelace New member

Your answer


Write at least 20 characters

Have a question about English grammar, style or vocabulary use? Ask now to get help from Grammarly experts for FREE.