reason

[navi tasan]

Are these correct:

1-I was not happy because of what had happened. I was rather sad.
2-I didn't accept his proposition because he had given me a present. I rejected the proposition and gave the gift back.

[Tdol]

How about using a semi-colon in 1?

[navi tasan]

Thanks TDOL,

You are quite right. A semi-colon would be much better.

PS. I reread this and realized that I had messed things up. Aren't both of the sentences ambiguous:

1-I was not happy because of what had happened. I was rather sad.
1a-Because of what had happened, I was not happy; I was rather sad.
1b-It is not true that what had happened made me happy; rather, it made me sad. (You say that I was happy because of what had happened. But that is not the case.)

2-I didn't accept his proposition because he had given me a present. I rejected the proposition and gave the gift back.
2a-Because he had given me a present, I didn't accept his proposition. I rejected the proposition and gave the gift back.
2b-It is not true that I accepted his proposition because he had given me a present. I rejected the proposition and gave the gift back. (You say that I accepted his proposition because he had given me a present. But that is not the case.)


I wanted to see if the sentences could be used when the second interpretations were intended and I thought that the 'contexts' I had created excluded the possiblity of the first ones. Then I realized that in those contexts the first interpretations could still be made.

[Tdol]

1- It could be either of the interpretations depending on the wider context.
2- He gave me a present, which I accepted, then returned it when he made the proposition. It sounds to me as if the rejection was the result of the gift having been given, which tainted the proposition. It could be a refutation of the other person's claim (that I had acceopted the proposition), but this would have to be made clear from the context- alone, I wouldn't interpret it that way.