I’m really sorry for being a bother but I must ask you to reconsider. The question in #3 (why the comma in “He didn’t run, because he was afraid to move” indicates that the “because”-part is “supplementary or parenthetical”, as opposed to the same sentence without a comma) has not been satisfactorily answered. Also, the answers that have been supplied are contradictory.
Take HW’s answer in #13, saying that “He” didn’t run because he may have carried the neighbour’s sofa (instead of “being afraid to move” in the CMS-example). HW refers back to MikeE’s #9 (saying “MikeE understands”). But MikeE’s sentence, without the comma, was “He didn’t run because he was afraid”, with the implication that “he” had a different reason for running, and that is not at all the same thing. HW’s example implies that “he” did not run in the end whereas MikeE’s example says he did in fact run. So Mike’s “he” has a different reason for running, while HW’s “he” has a different reason for walking slowly. The two examples are not compatible.
The problem with HW’s sentence is that, when you spell it out, it contains a double negation: he does not {not run} because of A, but because of B. It’s the running that is negated, and it is the causal explanation that is being negated at the same time. Mike’s example only negates the explanation (not ... because) but not the running. Mike knew that he changed the original sentence: “A better example (without the additional semantics that make one meaning unlikely) might be simply ...”
But that changed sentence (replacing “because he was afraid to move” with “because he was afraid”) does in fact introduce additional semantics. It transforms the original example from “{not X}, because Y” to “X {not because Y} but because Z”. In the Chicago Manual’s example, “he” stays put, in Mike’s demonstration he runs. In the CMS example only the running is negated, in HW’s example both the running and the explanation are negated.
It’s the negation in the CMS example that is leading us down the garden path (to where the red herrings dwell). If we use a positive sentence such as
He ran away, because he was afraid versus
He ran away because he was afraid
we see that we are back to square one, because that “but” with its alternative “because” has evaporated.
It is MikeE’s explanation in #1 that seems still valid to me. He used his own sentence from the other thread that triggered earlgreyhey’s question:
There are many other web pages that review these punctuation patterns, because native speakers have trouble with the rules too
and explains that the comma expresses a “subordination of information.” The because-clause refers to the main clause as a whole (he said it “explained why there are many web pages”, but I wouldn’t call that an explanation) whereas the sentence without the comma ties the because-clause up with “review these punctuation patterns”: They review those patterns for a reason, and that reason is part of the core information.
Finally, back to the CMS example once again. He didn’t run, because he was afraid to move supplies the core information that “he didn’t run” and supplements it with the reason for his staying where he was. It’s an addition that was not specifically asked for, it’s surplus, an afterthought. He didn’t run because he was afraid to move (no comma) presents the reason for not running as its core information. It’s a typical answer to a why-question (hence my feeble attempt in #8 – “why did he do X” vs. “what did he do”). The difference in meaning, subtle as it may be, is part of the theme/rheme-structure of communication. The theme is what is known, the rheme is the core information, the new information you choose to contribute. The rheme is also what you ask for when your knowledge of a situation is incomplete. The fact that “he didn’t run” is the core information of the sentence with a comma, and the reason why he didn't is the core information for the sentence without it. The because-part of the sentence with the comma is additional information that was not specifically asked for and can become the theme of the next utterance in a dialogue.
Sorry it became so technical. Please ask if you think that this or that point deserves clarification; I’ll try to do my best and write another 5 pages.(-:
If escoville could now reveal how intonation and stress work together to indicate the difference in meaning for which, in written language, the comma stands ...
