so, so that, or because?

[blacknomi]

Hello,

Shake the bag to the baker ______ the sound of your money will pay for the smell of his bread.
(a) because (b)so that (c) so

I don't see anything wrong with (a) and (c). Would you pls kindly explain?

[henry]

Originally Posted by blacknomi

Hello,

Shake the bag to the baker ______ the sound of your money will pay for the smell of his bread.
(a) because (b)so that (c) so

I don't see anything wrong with (a) and (c). Would you pls kindly explain?

IMO, it is better to use 'so that' here because the person wants to show the result of it.

'because' means 'for the reason that.'
e.g. I did it because he told me to.

'so' is used to show the reason for something.
e.g. It was still painful so I went to see a doctor.

'so' and 'because' are interchangeable.

Hope that helps.
:D

[blacknomi]

Originally Posted by henry

IMO, it is better to use 'so that' here because the person wants to show the result of it.

'because' means 'for the reason that.'
e.g. I did it because he told me to.

Shake the bag to the baker ==> a statement, functions as imperative.
the sound of your money will pay for the smell of his bread.
==> Why do I have to shake it? Because the sound of your money will pay for the smell of his bread. (This is the reason.)

Originally Posted by henry

'so' is used to show the reason for something.
e.g. It was still painful so I went to see a doctor.

I'd like to day "so" is used to show the result of sth.
It was still painful. ==> this is the cause.
I went to see a doctor. ==> this is the result.
Right? :wink:

Originally Posted by henry

'so' and 'because' are interchangeable.

I am with you.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

[henry]

Hi Blackanomi,

I am afraid I can't explain it clearer to you. You'll have to ask the teachers.

sorry :(

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by blacknomi

Hello,

Shake the bag to the baker ______ the sound of your money will pay for the smell of his bread.
(a) because (b)so that (c) so

I don't see anything wrong with (a) and (c). Would you pls kindly explain?

I'm afraid I don't understand the statement, buit it has the ring of an old proverb.

Obviously, if one has money and wants bread, one will just simply buy some. This sentence seems to be talking about something else. One does not have to pay for smelling bread. Nor does shaking a bag of money actually buy anything.

If I had to guess, I would say that the "baker" is someone who has something you want but wont give it to you, except in a teasing fashion (the smell). So you respond by withholding something the "baker" wants -- money. But you tease back by making the money jingle.

If I could expand that to reality, suppose a man meets a woman in a bar and wants to dance with her. She dances in front of him all night but never with him. So he starts jingling the keys to his Rolls Royce. She will not get a ride either. They are each teasing the other.

Now to the answers. Many would use "so" as a conjunction by itself, but strict grammarians object to it without "that". "Because" doesn't work because it indicates a reason for the action. You are not shaking the bag for the reason that the sound pays for the smell. You are shaking the bag to produce a sound so that (with the result that, in order that) the sound pays for the smell.

[blacknomi]

Originally Posted by henry

Hi Blackanomi,

I am afraid I can't explain it clearer to you. You'll have to ask the teachers.

sorry :(

Dear Henry, don't apologize. You've been very helpful. I do appreciate your TIMELY HELP.

[blacknomi]

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

I'm afraid I don't understand the statement, buit it has the ring of an old proverb.

Obviously, if one has money and wants bread, one will just simply buy some. This sentence seems to be talking about something else. One does not have to pay for smelling bread. Nor does shaking a bag of money actually buy anything.

If I had to guess, I would say that the "baker" is someone who has something you want but wont give it to you, except in a teasing fashion (the smell). So you respond by withholding something the "baker" wants -- money. But you tease back by making the money jingle.

If I could expand that to reality, suppose a man meets a woman in a bar and wants to dance with her. She dances in front of him all night but never with him. So he starts jingling the keys to his Rolls Royce. She will not get a ride either. They are each teasing the other.

Now to the answers. Many would use "so" as a conjunction by itself, but strict grammarians object to it without "that". "Because" doesn't work because it indicates a reason for the action. You are not shaking the bag for the reason that the sound pays for the smell. You are shaking the bag to produce a sound so that (with the result that, in order that) the sound pays for the smell.

Still confused...

Shake the bag to the baker, because the sound of your money will pay for the smell of his bread.

The sound of your money will pay for the smell of his bread, so shake the bag to the baker.

For me, cause-result relation exists.

The money will pay for the rent, so don't use it up.
Don't use up money, beacuse the money will pay for the rent.

I'm looking forward to your help. :wink:

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by blacknomi

Still confused...

Shake the bag to the baker, because the sound of your money will pay for the smell of his bread.

The sound of your money will pay for the smell of his bread, so shake the bag to the baker.

For me, cause-result relation exists.

The money will pay for the rent, so don't use it up.
Don't use up money, beacuse the money will pay for the rent.

I'm looking forward to your help. :wink:

Now that you state it that way, I have less problem with "because". It can also state the reason for shaking the bag. I still prefer "so that", but I understand your use of "because". :wink:

[blacknomi]

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

Now that you state it that way, I have less problem with "because". It can also state the reason for shaking the bag. I still prefer "so that", but I understand your use of "because". :wink:

Thank you for understanding my use of 'because.' I also accept the way you explain "so that" here, it fits in better than "because".

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by blacknomi

Thank you for understanding my use of 'because.' I also accept the way you explain "so that" here, it fits in better than "because".

There are so many constructions in English that overlap.