22

I recently learned from a YouTube video that "because of" is not correct. But my friend argues that "because of" is actually correct. Also, I see a lot of people writing and saying "because of". Here's a example:

That's because of you.

So, is it actually correct to use "because of" or only new learners think it's correct or is it not correct at all?

new Q Open Wid
  • 338
  • 3
  • 12

2 Answers2

43

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.

SamBC
  • 22,788
  • 35
  • 92
24

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 of; often it also drops determiners on the nominal representing the cause, casting the cause as a 'generic':

    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".

StoneyB on hiatus
  • 175,127
  • 14
  • 260
  • 461
  • 7
    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 Feb 24 '19 at 00:47
  • 2
    @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 on hiatus Feb 24 '19 at 00:57
  • Ach laddie, ye kenna know yer heathens. :) – Lambie Feb 24 '19 at 17:45
  • 4
    I observe the "new hip" usage almost only in the phrase "... because reasons", which is usually somewhat humoristic or mocking someone who actually does not state a reason – Hagen von Eitzen Feb 24 '19 at 17:56
  • @HagenvonEitzen I've seen it in lots of contexts; check out Garber's article at the link for some more. – StoneyB on hiatus Feb 24 '19 at 20:27
  • 6
    @HagenvonEitzen That's the main construction with which the usage began; it has definitely expanded beyond that by now, because internet. – Lightness Races in Orbit Feb 24 '19 at 21:16
  • The third usage ("because ___________") is short for "because of things implied by the concept labelled ___________". – Jasper Feb 28 '19 at 00:22
  • @Jasper You can paraphrase conventional because of in exactly the same way. A long paraphrase does not imply that a short form is elliptical. – StoneyB on hiatus Feb 28 '19 at 00:42
  • 1
    @StoneyB -- But traditional "because of" is not used with expressions like "internet" or "Science" or "(R-Oklahoma)". Whereas the newfangled "because" is. – Jasper Feb 28 '19 at 01:14
  • 1
    @Jasper. Ah, now that's a point I hadn't noticed: the new form also drops determiners. Thanks! I'll incorporate that. – StoneyB on hiatus Feb 28 '19 at 13:01