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). :roll: Would you pls kindly explain?

 

[henry]

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). :roll: 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.

 

[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). :roll: 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.

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.)
:?:

'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:

'so' and 'because' are interchangeable.

I am with you.

Looking forward to hearing from you.
:lol:

 

[henry]

Hi Blackanomi,

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

sorry

 

[MikeNewYork]

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). :roll: 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]

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. :cheers:

 

[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). :roll: 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.

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]

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). :roll: 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.

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]

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]

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".

There are so many constructions in English that overlap. :shock:

 

[blacknomi]

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".

There are so many constructions in English that overlap. :shock:

Not only in English, but in Mandarin.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[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".

There are so many constructions in English that overlap. :shock:

Not only in English, but in Mandarin.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

No doubt. There is a Chinese bank in New York with its name in Chinese characters on the outside wall. A news channel interviewed about 6 Chinese speakers from New York's Chinatown. They received six different translations of the characters. :wink:

 

[blacknomi]

No doubt. There is a Chinese bank in New York with its name in Chinese characters on the outside wall. A news channel interviewed about 6 Chinese speakers from New York's Chinatown. They received six different translations of the characters. :wink:

:shock: :shock: :shock:
I'm glad I am able to understand Chinese effortlessly. <grin>

 

[MikeNewYork]

No doubt. There is a Chinese bank in New York with its name in Chinese characters on the outside wall. A news channel interviewed about 6 Chinese speakers from New York's Chinatown. They received six different translations of the characters. :wink:

:shock: :shock: :shock:
I'm glad I am able to understand Chinese effortlessly. <grin>

Those people may have lived in New York too long. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[blacknomi]

It's their loss.

LOL!

 

[MikeNewYork]

It's their loss.

LOL!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: