because of who he is!

[keannu]

Can "because of" have a clause as a object? Doesn't it have to be "because who he is"? I think this wouldn't make sense.

[SUP]7)[/SUP]Let me tell you something. I came here [SUP]2)[/SUP]to win a trophy. I will do my best to win a trophy. It's for the pride of being the best. [SUP]3)[/SUP]That's why I do this. If Francis [SUP]4)[/SUP]wins tomorrow, it's because he is the best. [SUP]5)[/SUP]Not because who his father is, not because how much money he's got, but because of who he is! (Northcliffe stays silent.)

 

[Raymott]

"Not because of who his father is, not because of how much money he's got, but because of who he is!"
I think the sentence should include three "of"s. The above is correct English.

 

[Barb_D]

Since the multiple "Likes" has been disabled, I will state that I agree in a post.

 

[keannu]

Could you explain the difference between the two?

1. Not because who his father is(sounds awkward, in my opinon)
2. Not because of who his father is(maybe (the person) who his father is , "the person" is implied) - It seems "of" should have a phrase nuance.

1. not because how much money he's got
2. not because of how much money he's got - this seems to focus on "how much money",a noun.

 

[Raymott]

The simple difference is that both clauses 2 are grammatically correct, while neither of the clauses 1 are.
Let's make a whole sentence: "He should have won because who he is." This is wrong. We need "of" to explain the reason.
Compare:
"Why aren't you outside?"; "Because [of] the rain". "Of" can't be omitted.
"He couldn't be there yet!"; "Why?"; "Because [of] the time when he left."
"Why aren't you at work?"; "Because [of] illness."

 

[keannu]

Both 1 and 2 have a clause of (subject+verb). 1 sounds awkard, but why does it sound awkward? Can you explain? Your examples above are for noun phrases, which we definitely know, but this is a clause composition.

1. Not because who his father is
2. Not because he is a father - makes sense

 

[Raymott]

It doesn't matter whether it's a noun phrase or not. They sound awkward because they are wrong.
No, I can't explain the grammatical reason at the moment. I'll let you know if it comes to me.

 

[Weaver67]

(neither a teacher nor an English native speaker)

It reminds me of the concept of noun clause.
Such clauses are called noun clauses because they generally function in the same way as noun phrases: they can be the subject, the object, or the complement, or they can come after a preposition. (taken from "Oxford Learner's Grammar" by John Eastwood )

Examples:

As subject: What he has just said about this man is just not true
As object: I noticed who had entered the building
As complement: The result is that everybody has gone away.
After a preposition: Then there's a question of who pays for all this.