How do you spell "because" - through a hyphen or not?

Some people are interested in the question of how to write "because": by hyphens or not, whether together or separately, do you need a comma in this construction.

To which part of the speech is the combination "because"?

With a hyphen or not to write this or that design, it is possible to solve only when it is clear which part of the speech it is. In this case it is a complex alliance. With its help, the subordinate part joins the main part in a complex sentence. Here is an example with a schematic:

From the main part in the above example to the subordinate one should ask the question " why? ". The answer to it is precisely the second subordinate circumstantial proposal, which includes a complex union " because ". Through a hyphen or not to write the specified union - with this question we will understand hardly later.

Lexical synonyms

This very union is common. It can be found in high lyrics, in conversations of the townsfolk, and in scientific works. But if necessary, for example, in order not to repeat too often, it is replaced by synonyms. And sometimes, when writing a composition, the author has doubts: to write "because" through a hyphen or not? Here are used synonyms:

• Since;
• for;
• thanks to;
• due to the fact that;
• because of;
• as;
• after all;
• Due to the fact that;
• then.

The use of synonyms of the union in the literary text

They say that you can not cut down the ax. And this is so. Therefore, one should use synonyms, paying attention to their style staining, relevance in context.

Consider the variants of the synonymic substitutions in the sentence of the conversational style presented in the diagram below.

It is clear that the obsolete book "for", the high-flown "due to the fact that" or strictly business "because of what" in this context will look ridiculous. But to make a replacement for the prostitute "after all" or the common "because" is quite appropriate.

The use of synonyms of a union in a scientific or business text

Each speech style dictates its own rules. For example, in a scientific or business text, one should be more careful with the colloquial vocabulary :

Office workers are obliged to come to the workplace at a strictly fixed time, because the loss of even a minute will affect the salary!

Everyone feels how inappropriate the word "after" is . The ad style of the ad requires either official chancellarism "because of the fact that", "because" or the common " because" and " because ". And then not very confident in spelling can begin to torment the doubt. Is it really necessary to write "because" through a hyphen or not?

It is simpler, of course, to insert a one-word union. For example, archaism "for" will help to add a little humor to this ad. Although it is difficult to make a mistake in the word of three letters, not all of them, and such a little ironic treatment will be to their liking. Especially in the part where it comes to the salary.

Why do you want to put a hyphen in the dictionary construction, where there is a "what"?

Most likely, many are confused by the pronoun "something" . Vigilantly remembering his writing, not understanding the nuances of spelling, the amateur concludes: "what" you need to write through a hyphen! But in fact the main role here is played by the particle "something" . This she forces to write a pronoun through a hyphen. Compare: "somebody", "somehow", "here and there" .

And in the construction we are considering, "something" is missing. Hence, it is not necessary to doubt how it is written "because ": through a hyphen or not. The answer is unequivocal: we write the union as two separate words!

When "because" is written together?

A provocative question, sometimes asked by teachers, is to confuse the student or student. Never! The union "because" is always written separately.

Another thing is that there is a variant of writing "by what" , that is, in three words. Then it is no longer a union, but a combination of a preposition, a pronoun and an alliance. The test here is the formulation of the question "why?" . If the answer is part of the proposal, then there is a complex union in the design, which you need to write in two words. But if the answer does not come out, you have a preposition with a pronoun and a union "what . "

However, the complexity is the lack of understanding by some people of the differences between "why" and " why" questions. Then errors with this method of verification are difficult to avoid. Experts advise asking the semantic question "for what reason?"

Consider this in the illustrated example. The first sentence is a variant of using a three-word construction. It is clear that the question "for what reason?" "Is inappropriate here.

The second clue offered by the teachers is based on replacing a complex union with single-part "because" or "after" . In the proposed first example, this does not work either.

But if you turn to the second option proposed here, then replace it with a complex alliance with the common "after all" or the common "because" it will be quite easy. And the question " for what reason?" "There is an easy answer.

Where to put a comma?

After it became clear how to write "because" - through a hyphen or separately - it is necessary to understand the use of punctuation.

Some people generally never admit anything except a point. It's bitter to realize, but today there is a growing generation, which also considers this sign superfluous when writing comments in social networks or messages. I must say that such "sheets" without punctuation are difficult to read. Yes, and catch the meaning of what is written sometimes impossible. You look so on a string of letters in one sentence and remember the cartoonish situation with "you can not pardon execution."

So where are the punctuation marks when in a complex sentence the parts are connected by means of a complex union? It turns out that a comma can stand both before "because" and before "what." It depends on the goal pursued by the author.

In the first case, he focuses on the result, and in the second on the cause. It looks like this:

In the first variant the main idea is that the banks are no more. The reason for its loss is indicated, but it is as if secondary.

In the second variant, there is an obvious excuse - an explanation why the banks are no more, right? And all because the comma is put before "what". As mentioned above, the emphasis is shifted to the cause of what happened.

At all do not put commas in those cases when the union is at the beginning of the sentence. That is, the sentence itself is the indication of the cause, only the action itself is described in a separate phrase.

Cases where a comma should divide parts of an alliance

In some cases, the opinion of the author does not play a role, because the rules of punctuation are in force. They say that a comma must necessarily share a complex union if before it:

• There is a negative particle "not";
• There is a particle of amplification or limitation of action (for example, only);
• An introductory word;
• The first part of the union is included in parallel structures, for example, homogeneous members or subordinate clauses.

The conclusion from what has been said

Every self-respecting person who speaks Russian needs to know everything about a complex union "because":

• how do you spell;
• The rule of setting commas when used;
• Options for replacing it with semantic synonyms.

It should be remembered that this union is always written in two words. Here you can not put a hyphen under any conditions! And when you replace it with a synonym, you should take a closer look at the stylistic coloring of the context.