Contrary to popular belief, starting a sentence with “because” is not necessarily a grammatical error. This rule can also apply to the word "since."

Using “because” at the beginning of a sentence is grammatically correct when it is used as a subordinating conjunction. This is sometimes called a “dependent word” or “subordinator.” A subordinating conjunction is a word that allows for an inversion in the normal sentence structure; it allows a dependent clause to come first. A comma is used to connect the dependent and independent clauses. It all works out like so:

Correct: Because I lack creativity, this example sentence is not fun.

Using “because” at the beginning of a sentence is not grammatically correct when the clause is made to stand on its own. When "because" is used as a subordinating conjunction, it causes the clause it is in to become a dependent clause and thus a sentence fragment. For the sentence to be completed, it requires the addition of an independent clause. Here’s how it doesn’t work out:

Incorrect: Because television stole my soul.

So now you know that using “because” at the beginning of a sentence can in fact be used correctly, does this mean you use this form at every opportunity? The answer to that is no. Just because it is grammatically correct, that does not mean that it is good form for all occasions. In more formal writing, you may want to shy away from using “because” at the beginning of a sentence. This is similar to avoiding passive voice in formal writing.

Disclaimer: I may have stumbled upon this one grammar rule, but I am in no way a grammar fiend. Please /msg about any grammar errors in this write-up that would make me look silly in an ironic sort of way. Please ignore any possible incorrect usage of the word irony. Thank you
A song by The Beatles.
Recorded on 1 August, 1969. Overdubs added 4 and 5 August, 1969. All at Abbey Road Studios, London, England.
John Lennon: lead vocal/harmony vocal, electric guitar, harpsichord
Paul McCartney: lead vocal/harmony vocal, bass guitar
George Harrison: lead vocal/harmony vocal, moog synthesiser

"Because" was, strangely, inspired after John Lennon asked Yoko Ono to play the opening chords to Beethoveen's "Moonlight Sonata" backward. He was so intrigued and inspired he wrote the song then and there.

The song is unique in two ways.
1) It contains a nine-part triple-tracked three-part vocal harmony (three voices with all three overdubbing twice, thanks for the correction Stealth Munchkin).
2) It was the third and last song of The Beatles to entirely, throughout the song use a three-part harmony, at all. (The first two were This Boy and Yes It Is.)

Opening with the harsichord and then the clean electric guitar, the 9-part vocals encircle the left, middle, and right channels of the recording, spread out evenly. This creates the feeling of a concert hall (an understatement, it is truly divine, listen to the Anthology 3 vocals-only version to really see). The moog synth plays a small part in the "ahhhs," merely replaying the melody from the beginning. All throughout, the inverse of "Moonlight Sonata" plays on.

The song is beautiful.
Stealth Munchkin had this to say:
"Because isn't 9 part harmony - it's triple-tracked 3 part harmony. Also it's not the 'first of very few' songs to do that. If you mean the first Beatles song to do it, they never did it again, and if you mean the first song full stop you're very wrong - there were many bands that had done this before..."

Consider the next snippets really the work of Stealth Munchkin, thanks to him for all the help and the subsequent ass-kicking that was both well-deserved and well-stated. :) )

1) As I repaired above, there were plenty of songs the Fab Four did where they used three-part harmony in parts, thus the addendum of "throughout."

2) From the "ranting" edit of the writeup that i took off, I stated that The Beatles innovated making music in the studio that couldn't --feasibly, anyway-- be reproduced live. Well, that's just not true. These people had done this well before: Phil Spector (who actually engineered some of The Beatles' work), Frank Zappa, Brian Wilson (see below), and above all Les Paul, whom i have learned patented overdubbing, thanks Stealth Munchkin. Also: Paul Buff used a 5-track studio back in 1962, going way against my claim that 4-tracks were the only thing pre-'69 (though they were the norm, Buff was just the man).

3) Most importantly: (And, wow, I don't know how i could overlook this) Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys had a 6-part harmony in California Girls(that's 6 completely different lines at the same time, 6-tone chords people), with all six overdubbed twice, bringing the total to 18 voices. That predates Abbey Road by several years. Damn, just damn.

I truly hope i didn't misinform anyone of The Beatles and especially their masterpeice (though for real masterpeices, pick up Pet Sounds).


…because you're thinking that hope is foolish, because she left you and I haven't, and because I'm putting my hand on your shoulder, putting my hand on your head which lies in my lap, running trembling fingers through your short sandy hair, sighing, exhale like all spirit gone, Πνευματος ' Αγιου--Holy Spirit, Holy Breath, (holy, holy, holy, lord god almighty…), and all I can get out is breath, breathing, spirit. There are no words, and there is never hope lost, for there is never hope unfounded; in the blood, even tainted, it still breathes in the blood like oxygen, keeping cells alive, keeping spirit contained in lungs, heart, arteries, brain, spirit throughout and throughin, and the tears on your cheek turn to laughter...


Outside of time
Inside of spirit
Until the body makes the world disappear
and the eye closes

and because I place my hands on your head, anointing you like a priest, and because you think all hope lost, and because you moan the darkness out, and because your large, tanned hand grabs my leg, and because I taste the salty sweat on your brow, and because you run a hand inside my thigh, and because there is no god but god, that this is a multiplicity, where many are one, inside and outside, and in this sacrament the Holy Spirit sighs…

Be*cause" (?), conj. [OE. bycause; by + cause.]


By or for the cause that; on this account that; for the reason that.



In order that; that.


And the multitude rebuked them because they should hold their peace. Matt. xx. 31.

Because of, by reason of, on account of. [Prep. phrase.]

Because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Eph. v. 6.

Syn, -- Because], For, Since, As, Inasmuch As. These particles are used, in certain connections, to assign the reason of a thing, or that "on account of" which it is or takes place. Because (by cause) is the strongest and most emphatic; as, I hid myself because I was afraid. For is not quite so strong; as, in Shakespeare, "I hate him, for he is a Christian." Since is less formal and more incidental than because; as, I will do it since you request me. It more commonly begins a sentence; as, Since your decision is made, I will say no more. As is still more incidental than since, and points to some existing fact by way of assigning a reason. Thus we say, as I knew him to be out of town, I did not call. Inasmuch as seems to carry with it a kind of qualification which does not belong to the rest. Thus, if we say, I am ready to accept your proposal, inasmuch as I believe it is the best you can offer, we mean, it is only with this understanding that we can accept it.


© Webster 1913.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.