# Revised title: because of <gerund>, for <gerund>



## fangoso

Hey!, so, I would like to understand in what situations each can be used and what they would mean, the structure because of/for followed by a gerund here some examples: 

1- "They were able to win the match *because of/for *being smart"- I'm trying to point out the attribute of being smart they had before, during and after the match (could still have) , it is not like they got smart just for winning that match, not *by* being smart, no, being smart is part of they personal features and thanks to that they won the match.

2-"He was arrested (just)* because of/for* being black"- that's obviously a personal feature of him.

3-"She didn't hurt her feet *because of/for* having her boots on"- this sentence however, does not indicates if she still has her boots on or not, but I think that is not a problem.

So, please ¿can you tell me which one you think is the correct option for each example? .Thanks


----------



## Franco-filly

I don't think "because of/for" with a gerund works.  You could say "...because they were smart,"  "....because he was black," "....because she was wearing boots"  or  "Due to being smart they won the match" but it doesn't sound so natural.


----------



## Parla

With "because", the preposition is always *of*. We don't say "because for".


----------



## Andygc

However, "He was arrested for being black" does work. I think this works only where something is done to somebody because of a personal characteristic.
"He was shot for being in the Resistance." "He was divorced for being unfaithful." "She was loved for being so kind."

EDIT Actually, your question isn't clear. Are you asking about *because of/because for* or *because of/for*?


----------



## fangoso

Parla said:


> With "because", the preposition is always *of*. We don't say "because for".


I did not write "because for" I meant because of is a term and for is another.


----------



## Franco-filly

"She didn't hurt her feet *for *having her boots on"  Would mean that "As/Because she had her boots on, her feet did not hurt."  Is that what you intend to say?


----------



## fangoso

Exactly. Is that a correct sentence? would "because of" also work?


----------



## Franco-filly

No, I can't think of when I would use "because *of*."  I would say "She didn't her her feet because she was wearing boots / because she had her boots on"


----------



## fangoso

what about "she didn't hurt for/because of wearing her boots" ?


----------



## Andygc

Franco-filly said:


> "She didn't hurt her feet *for *having her boots on"


Would you really say that? It seems really unlikely to me as an example of colloquial English. I don't know if it might be a regionalism.



fangoso said:


> what about "she didn't hurt for/because of wearing her boots" ?


Didn't hurt what? Neither version is normal English.


----------



## fangoso

Andygc said:


> Would you really say that? It seems really unlikely to me as an example of colloquial English. I don't know if it might be a regionalism.
> 
> Didn't hurt what? Neither version is normal English.


Sorry, I forgot to write "her feet" just like the previous one  I meant "she didn't hurt her feet for/because of wearing her boots".


----------



## Andygc

fangoso said:


> Sorry, I forgot to write "her feet" just like the previous one  I meant "she didn't hurt her feet for/because of wearing her boots".


"She didn't hurt her feet because of wearing her boots" is not ungrammatical, but it is not normal English. Franco-filly already told you what is normal English:  "She didn't hurt her feet because she was wearing boots / because she had her boots on"


----------



## fangoso

You can also take a look at some sentences I found online, you can compare them and tell me what you think.

"Sandra's sister tells us that Juan once spent two
months in the government hospitalfor being severely malnourished".-  http://www.linguee.es/ingles-espanol/traduccion/for+being.html

"If fasting will definitely make you sick or will cause you      physical harm because of being severely underweight, then in this case it is      allowed for you not to fast, but you have to make it up when you are able      to".-  http://islamqa.info/en/142274

"I've never had prejudice against me  because of being a woman in comedy, I've never felt any sort of  unfairness because of that - but I do think it is naive to think that it  doesn't exist."
 Ellie Kemper- http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/elliekempe501410.html


----------



## In Absentia

Try this fangoso. Do a google search of "because of" including quotation marks, and count how many times you find a gerund directly after the search term. I count 0 after page 15, discounting the times where the webpage in question was directly translating from another language like Spanish or Turkish into English. 

I can't cite a grammar rule but it seems to me that it's just not the done thing, and I wouldn't do it either. 

As for this sentence that you have unearthed:

"If fasting will definitely make you sick or will cause you       physical harm because of being severely underweight, then in this case  it is      allowed for you not to fast, but you have to make it up when  you are able      to"

I would have written, "because you are severely underweight for example, then..."

However, if you are just talking out loud, in an informal setting, no one is going to think it odd that like Ellie Kemper, you say, "because of being". If you were to write this down however I would suggest "because of my being a woman".


----------



## fangoso

Thanks In Absentia, and ¿what do you think about the first one?? it says "for being" (I mispelled it)


----------



## In Absentia

There is nothing wrong with writing "for being". Is that what you would like to know or would you like to know when "for" can be used to mean "because (of)"?

I'll be honest, it's quarter past four in the morning here. I'm not at my sharpest.


----------



## Andygc

fangoso said:


> Thanks In Absentia, and ¿what do you think about the first one?? it says "for being" (I mispelled it)





> "Sandra's sister tells us that Juan once spent two months in the government hospital for being severely malnourished"


Yet again, this example is not normal English, and the term 'government hospital' is not used within the principal English-speaking countries. This, the structure, and the name 'Juan' suggest that the sentence is either a translation into English, or English written by a Spanish-speaker. Most of the examples on that page are from non-English sources, or are compatible with the guidance I gave you in post #4

You should also understand that the Internet is a rich source of examples of non-standard, unidiomatic and ungrammatical English.


----------



## fangoso

> EDIT Actually, your question isn't clear. Are you asking about *because of/because for* or *because of/for*?



I'm asking about for/because of.


----------



## fangoso

I will tell you something, the more I search on the internet for examples the more I think those two prepositions can be used, in most cases, interchangeably.

I thought Andygc was right in the post #4 when saying  





> "He was arrested for being black" does work. I think this works only  where something is done to somebody because of a personal  characteristic.


however look at this:

"One wonders was it hard for Elsie to be apart of an oppressing race, a race that had treated her bad _because of being black" _http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/ninamaemckinney/ElsieRoxborough.html

"Trae said he had been bullied in the past _because of being black_" http://www.carolinacoastonline.com/...003-0753-5e86-81c7-589815fe86ca.html?mode=jqm

"Gunned down _for being Black_ in Walmart" http://socialistworker.org/2014/10/08/shot-for-being-black-in-walmart

"6 Black Celebrities Who Were Bullied By Their White Peers _For Being Black_" http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/09...llied-by-their-white-peers-for-being-black/2/


----------



## Andygc

fangoso said:


> I will tell you something, the more I search on the internet for examples the more I think those two prepositions can be used, in most cases, interchangeably.
> 
> I thought Andygc was right in the post #4 when saying
> however look at this:


You are welcome to believe what you want to, despite the advice you have been given by literate native speakers of English. Did you read this?





Andygc said:


> You should also understand that the Internet is a  rich source of examples of non-standard, unidiomatic and ungrammatical  English.



"One wonders was it hard for Elsie to be apart of an oppressing race, a race that had treated her bad because of being black"  The writer of that article likes to use "because of", but seems to have difficulty with separating article and noun (apart) and using adverbs where needed (bad). It should be "... treated her badly because of her being black" or (better) "... treated her badly because she was black" (was - she is dead)

"Trae said he had been bullied in the past because of being black"  Should be "... because of his being black" or (better) "... because he is black" (could be 'is' or 'was')

"Gunned down for being Black in Walmart"   see post #4 (although it is a headline and not a sentence)

"6 Black Celebrities Who Were Bullied By Their White Peers For Being Black"  see post #4 (also a headline and not a sentence)


----------



## In Absentia

Like Andy says you have to consider your sources. Newspapers often write  in an informal register, especially regional or tabloid newspapers.  They are frequently littered with grammatical errors and spelling  mistakes, often pointed out by native speakers, or "grammar Nazis", in  comment sections. Angelfire websites are written by anyone with a desire  to create a webpage/site. After a certain point, you cannot learn about  English grammar rules/vocabulary (or any language) from random  translations of another language. 

Moreover, it really is a question of whether you wish you use "proper  English" or whether you just want to communicate without making too many  glaring errors. Native speakers make mistakes all the time. I've probably made a hat-full in this post alone.

Upon searching for a grammar rule that better explains the use of "because of", I found the following quote:
*
*"*Due to, owing to, on account of *and *because of *are all prepositions with similar meanings. They are followed by nouns or noun phrases." 
Source: perfectyourenglish dot com

This confirms what we said above about the use of the gerund.


For  more information about "for" search for+gerund as a substitute for  because search, for+gerund. There are already some threads on  Wordreference. 

I'm sorry I can't properly post links as my account is not old enough.


----------



## fangoso

Guys, my main confusion here is that if they both mean "due to" ¿how do I know when to use each one??, no one has been able to cite a rule or some site where it says it is ungrammatical.The only kind of pattern most of us has detected is that "for+gerund" is used to indicate that something is done by a person(?) to another person due to a personal attribute, but that's it ,

I just did a big search, including thread and didn´t find any rule for it.


----------



## sdgraham

You cannot always find a "rule" for determining what is natural English and what is not.

If everything were covered by "rules," there would be no need for this forum with a host of educated, native speakers.

It not only is quite possible to construct a bizarre sentence that is grammatically "correct," but we have been discussing such a sentence today in this forum.

See: cause somebody unable

Sometimes the only "rule" you will find is "because that's the way we say it." That is especially the case where prepositions are concerned. 

Sorry, but that's the way things are. 

As a side note, we do not begin a question with an inverted question mark (¿) as is done in Spanish. You probably will not find a rule that specifically prohibits it, however.


----------



## fangoso

sdgraham said:


> As a side note, we do not begin a question with an inverted question mark (¿) as is done in Spanish. You probably will not find a rule that specifically prohibits it, however.


Thank you for that!!


----------



## Smauler

fangoso said:


> Hey!, so, I would like to understand in what situations each can be used and what they would mean, the structure because of/for followed by a gerund here some examples:
> 
> 1- "They were able to win the match *because of/for *being smart"- I'm trying to point out the attribute of being smart they had before, during and after the match (could still have) , it is not like they got smart just for winning that match, not *by* being smart, no, being smart is part of they personal features and thanks to that they won the match.
> 
> 2-"He was arrested (just)* because of/for* being black"- that's obviously a personal feature of him.
> 
> 3-"She didn't hurt her feet *because of/for* having her boots on"- this sentence however, does not indicates if she still has her boots on or not, but I think that is not a problem.
> 
> So, please ¿can you tell me which one you think is the correct option for each example? .Thanks



Using the gerund is unusual in normal English.  Generally normal nouns and verbs are used.

"They were able to win the match by being smart".  I'd object to this because being smart alone is never enough to win a match - you have to have ability too.

"He was arrested because he was black".

"She didn't hurt her feet because she had her boots on".

Gerunds are useful sometimes, but not when there are very obvious simpler alternatives.


----------



## fangoso

Andygc said:


> However, "He was arrested for being black" does work. I think this works only where something is done to somebody because of a personal characteristic.
> "He was shot for being in the Resistance." "He was divorced for being unfaithful." "She was loved for being so kind."



That is not entirely accurate because if it was then this sentence would be wrong, and I'm pretty sure it isn't: "they were arrested *for* having sex in a park"
 because having sex is not a personal characteristic


----------



## fangoso

> "They were able to win the match by being smart".  I'd object to this  because being smart alone is never enough to win a match - you have to  have ability too.



I think this also depends on the context, because, lets say I'm judging the performance of both teams in a match, they both put effort, they both where fast, they both where organized, BUT one of the teams was smart and the other was not. then I feel it would be acceptable to use* because of* being smart , not sure though.


----------



## Andygc

fangoso said:


> That is not entirely accurate because if it was then this sentence would be wrong, and I'm pretty sure it isn't: "they were arrested *for* having sex in a park"
> because having sex is not a personal characteristic


My post #4 referred to the use of "for being" not "for having". There is a great danger of this thread turning into a free-ranging discussion of the use of prepositions with gerunds, which isn't what this forum does - it's a dictionary forum.



Smauler said:


> As I said  before, gerunds are rare in spoken English, and rarer in written  English





Smauler said:


> "He was arrested for being black" has no gerund.   Neither does "they were arrested for having sex in the park".





In Absentia said:


> I really don't understand why you are saying this.


Neither do I. As you rightly say, 'being' and 'having' in those sentences are gerunds. I expect to use at least one gerund every day in normal speech, and my using them is a routine part of my writing. (There they go again!)


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

Andygc said:


> Neither do I. As you rightly say, 'being' and 'having' in those sentences are gerunds. I expect to use at least one gerund every day in normal speech, and my using them is a routine part of my writing. (There they go again!)


Hear hear! One a day seems quite low to me, but perhaps I'm more chatty than you. I like to get three out of the way before breakfast.


----------



## Andygc

Beryl from Northallerton said:


> Hear hear! One a day seems quite low to me, but perhaps I'm more chatty than you. I like to get three out of the way before breakfast.


Surely you mean that you like *getting *three out of the way before breakfast (or would that have been your fourth?)


----------



## fangoso

Hey folks, I think I have got to the conclusion that in some cases one thing is the cause and another thing is the reason, for example, if a man commits a robbery and now is being sought by the police, but he is hiding in some place (a random place) and at some point he/she thinks the police won't see him and decides to take a walk down the street, but as he was walking down the street the police saw him caught him.

Now, he was arrested *for* commiting a robbery, a robbery is a crime a wasthe reason for his arrest BUT at the same time he was arrested *because of* taking a walk which is perfectly legal, but was the cause of him getting caught because otherwise the police would probably not have been able to arrest him, at least not at that moment.

Do you guys agree?


----------



## Andygc

Yet again, no. Even if there was a causal link, which there isn't, he would be arrested because he was taking a walk in the street. How many times do you need to be told that sentences like "He was arrested because of taking a walk" are not normal English. In this situation "He was caught because  he was taking a walk in the street" is the normal sentence.


----------



## fangoso

Andygc said:


> Yet again, no. Even if there was a causal link, which there isn't, he would be arrested because he was taking a walk in the street. How many times do you need to be told that sentences like "He was arrested because of taking a walk" are not normal English. In this situation "He was caught because  he was taking a walk in the street" is the normal sentence.


Not being normal English doesn't necessarily mean it is ungrammatical English, it could be just much less common, but lets say we substitute "because of talking a walk" for "because he was taking a walk", it will be the same aproach of reason vs cause analysis.


----------



## Andygc

fangoso,  people here try to help people who want to understand English and to use the language properly. If you want to write or speak English that is not idiomatic, feel free to use sentences like "He was arrested because of taking a walk". That's not normal, so it's not English. If you think that a combination of words that would not be used by most English speakers is grammatical then your idea of grammar and mine are different.


----------



## fangoso

Andygc said:


> fangoso,  people here try to help people who want to understand English and to use the language properly. If you want to write or speak English that is not idiomatic, feel free to use sentences like "He was arrested because of taking a walk". That's not normal, so it's not English. If you think that a combination of words that would not be used by most English speakers is grammatical then your idea of grammar and mine are different.



Ok, I got it, you win, but then again my approach of reason vs cause is the same, just change the sentence "he was arrested because of taking a walk" for the one you suggest ("he was caught because he was taking  a walk in the street") and that's it.


----------



## In Absentia

fangoso said:


> Not being normal English doesn't necessarily mean it is ungrammatical English



I posted a grammar rule for you earlier fangoso. 
"because of [is a preposition] ... [which is] followed by [a] *nouns or noun phrase*." 
Source: perfectyourenglish dot com

I know this thread is a mess, but why ask the question if you don't want the answer. Yes you will be understood if you make the same mistake as native speakers sometimes do, but your question is about proper English usage, is it not?


----------



## fangoso

In Absentia said:


> I posted a grammar rule for you earlier fangoso.
> "because of [is a preposition] ... [which is] followed by [a] *nouns or noun phrase*."
> Source: perfectyourenglish dot com
> 
> I know this thread is a mess, but why ask the question if you don't want the answer. Yes you will be understood if you make the same mistake as native speakers sometimes do, but your question is about proper English usage, is it not?



It's not that I don't want the answer, is just that there is evidence  that proves that" because of -ing" is not wrong. my results in google searches: "because of being" about 296.000.000 results, "because of having" about 115.000.000 results and "because of doing" about  67.000.000 results.

And I have a rule for you:

 "A gerund is the –ing form of a verb acting as a noun, in any of the  “noun roles” possible in a sentence.  A gerund can be the subject, the  direct object, or the object of a prepositional phrase.
 1.  Walking is an underappreciated form of exercise.
 2.  Right after a big meal, one should avoid swimming.
 3.  To appreciate the art of pitching is to understand the essential aspect of baseball."
 - See more at: http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-grammar-gerunds-and-gerund-phrases/#sthash.u4kBiXPX.dpuf


----------



## In Absentia

I know what a gerund is thank you. The rule is that a gerund can be a noun but cannot always do what a noun can do. There are a few exceptions. This is one of those exceptions. I told you before, to consider your sources. If you are truly interested in the correct and proper usage of "because of", I suggest instead of quoting random sources, you only consider sources whose focus is English grammar and/or usage. As I and others have previously said, the internet is littered with bad examples and so is everyday speech.

Millions of, usually but not exclusively, Americans say, "I could care less", everyday. They are all wrong and that makes no sense, however, they continue to do so and are understood. People frequently misuse "who" and "whom", that doesn't make it less of a grammatical error if you do it too. My mother, for her entire life up until the age of 40, didn't realise that the word "windscreen" was a compound composed of the words "wind" and "screen". She thought it was a "winscreen". You can find bad examples of English all over the place. If you are only interested in speaking English or using English as "natively" as possible go ahead and make the same errors. Not the "winscreen" one, that's just foolish.


----------



## fangoso

In Absentia said:


> I know what a gerund is thank you. The rule is that a gerund can be a noun but cannot always do what a noun can do. There are a few exceptions. This is one of those exceptions. I told you before, to consider your sources. If you are truly interested in the correct and proper usage of "because of", I suggest instead of quoting random sources, you only consider sources whose focus is English grammar and/or usage. As I and others have previously said, the internet is littered with bad examples and so is everyday speech.
> 
> Millions of, usually but not exclusively, Americans say, "I could care less", everyday. They are all wrong and that makes no sense, however, they continue to do so and are understood. People frequently misuse "who" and "whom", that doesn't make it less of a grammatical error if you do it too. My mother, for her entire life up until the age of 40, didn't realise that the word "windscreen" was a compound composed of the words "wind" and "screen". She thought it was a "winscreen". You can find bad examples of English all over the place. If you are only interested in speaking English or using English as "natively" as possible go ahead and make the same errors. Not the "winscreen" one, that's just foolish.


Why is this an exception? you say things that you cannot prove. "in any of the noun roles", now you try to discredit that source,


----------



## JordyBro

To address the OP 'for' can always be used with a gerund. 'Because of -ing' is honestly highly unusual, 'because of not -ing' is a bit more usable. SVO gerunds work with "because of" best, for example "Because of my mom being out, I didn't have anyone to make dinner".


----------



## fangoso

JordyBro said:


> To address the OP 'for' can always be used with a gerund. 'Because of -ing' is honestly highly unusual, 'because of not -ing' is a bit more usable. SVO gerunds work with "because of" best, for example "Because of my mom being out, I didn't have anyone to make dinner".


Thanks for your input, I have also noticed that you cannot start a clause with "for being" like you do with "because of " , for example: "for being fat,he was bullied". Am I right?


----------



## In Absentia

fangoso said:


> Why is this an exception?



There are lots of grammar exceptions that are not explicable, in many languages and not just English. Some things you have to memorise.



fangoso said:


> you say things that you cannot prove. "in any of the noun roles"



I have never used the words "in any of the noun rules", have I? I don't understand what you are quoting or referring to, I'm sorry. If you don't believe me that gerunds cannot always be used in exactly  the same way as a noun then I think you might need to start another  thread. However, a gerund acts as a noun, it is still also acting as verb, in part. That is why we bother to call it a gerund rather than a noun or something like 'a noun ending in ing'. 



fangoso said:


> now you try to discredit that source


No I am repeating what I told you earlier, sentiments echoed by others, about considering your sources, ie using the websites of local newspapers etc to prove a grammar rule. That doesn't prove a grammar rule, it proves, in this case, that sometimes, native speakers don't always follow the rules.


----------



## fangoso

> I have never used the words "in any of the noun rules", have I? I don't   understand what you are quoting or referring to, I'm sorry. If you don't   believe me that gerunds cannot always be used in exactly  the same way   as a noun then I think you might need to start another  thread.  However,  a gerund acts as a noun, it is still also acting as verb, in  part. That  is why we bother to call it a gerund rather than a noun or  something  like 'a noun ending in ing'.


That quote is from the website I linked, read and you'll see.



> No I am repeating what I told you earlier, sentiments echoed by others,  about considering your sources, ie using the websites of local  newspapers etc to prove a grammar rule. That doesn't prove a grammar  rule, it proves, in this case, that sometimes, native speakers don't  always follow the rules.


That is an specialized website, I mean they are explaining an English rule, I don't think that was done by a random guy.


----------



## In Absentia

fangoso said:


> That is an specialized website, I mean they are explaining an English rule, I don't think that was done by a random guy.




I did not mean to insinuate that it was, I was referring to your earlier examples. Sorry if that was unclear. 

I don't agree with your website, there are nearly always exceptions to grammar rules and I believe this is one of them. I've yet to see a credible source use a gerund after "because of". Since I think we're going round in circles and I don't think I have anything more to add, I'm going to leave it there I think.


----------



## Andygc

fangoso said:


> It's not that I don't want the answer, is just that there is evidence  that proves that" because of -ing" is not wrong. my results in google searches: "because of being" about 296.000.000 results, "because of having" about 115.000.000 results and "because of doing" about  67.000.000 results.


If I search for "because of doing" I get a claimed 64,900,00 results, the very first of which (http://talk.collegeconfidential.com...13-whats-wrong-with-because-of-doing-sth.html) has this question





> It appears to me that "because of doing sth" is always wrong in the SAT.  << excess text removed >>
> 
> In the two examples above, the two wrong answers both used "because of  doing". Can anyone explain the use of "because of doing sth"? When is it  correct and when is it not?


provides this answer





> What you call "doing sth" is just a gerund phrase (a phrase with a  gerund). A gerund is a verb form that acts as a noun. It refers to some  act. For example, if I say _Eating vegetables is good for me_,  "Eating" is the gerund. It represents the act of eating. A gerund  doesn't specify who is doing the action. So saying something like _She left him because of cheating_  is ambiguous, because we don't know who cheated. She could have left  him because she herself cheated and felt guilty about doing so. She also  could have left him because he cheated.


You have also fallen into the Google trap - the number of results given on the first page is always totally divorced from reality. If I click through the pages, I get to page 40 which tells me 





> _In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 395 already displayed.
> If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. _


If I accept that invitation and continue clicking through, I get Page 49 of 483 results. That's rather fewer than 64,900,000.

I suggest that you accept that there is a rule, to which there might possibly be an exception, that English does not include the structure "because of + gerund". It does, however, include the structure "because of + possessive + gerund", as in "He was arrested because of *his* being black". I told you this in post #20. 





> "Trae said he had been bullied in the past because of being black"  Should be "... because of his being black" or (better) "... because he is black" (could be 'is' or 'was')



There is also the form "He was arrested because of *him* being black", which is a form which many AE speakers will abhor, but which is very common in BE.


----------



## fangoso

Well, when I google "for doing", which is not only much more common but also pretty grammatical , I ge about 48.000.000 results, I know that amount of results are fake, but I get 49 pages, not that much of a difference for something that is supposed to be ungrammatical and something that is clearly is grammaticaly correct.


----------



## panjandrum

fangoso said:


> That quote is from the website I linked, read and you'll see.
> That is an specialized website, I mean they are explaining an English rule, I don't think that was done by a random guy.


Unfortunately, when you quoted this in post #39, you did not specify that it was a quote from a website.
The source, and the quotation, is given in post #37.
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-grammar-gerunds-and-gerund-phrases/

This is a "GMAT blog".  (GMAT is the General Management Admission Test)
I make no comment on the author, but he provides a short pen-picture from which I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
"... Content Developer for Magoosh with over 20 years teaching experience and a BC in Physics and an MA in Religion, both from Harvard."

Now let's look at what he actually said about gerunds in the role of nouns.
He defines a gerund as 
_'the -ing form of a verb acting as a noun, in any of the "noun roles" possible in a sentence.'_

That does not mean that you can use a gerund in any "noun role".  It means that if you find the -ing form of a verb acting as a noun in any possible "noun role", then what you have found is a gerund.
The difference is important.

Having covered these points, I thought it would be instructive to look for some reliable usage evidence.
I consider Google Books and Google News useful indicators
"because of being"
Books - more than a million
News - thousands
That looks like a very strong representation.

"because of doing"
Books - thousands
News - several hundred
Quite a lot there too.

Although I share the frequently-expressed dislike for this structure, and would not use it myself, I find that is is used a great deal.
I leave others to take a look at the various examples listed and draw their own conclusions about whether they represent company they would choose to keep.


----------



## fangoso

Well, I don't understand why I got my posts deleted, I'm new to the forum, but I hope you don't delete this one, panjandrum
, because here I'm providing the links of the websites that ,by the way, are very reliable(Oxford dictionary and Cambridge dictionary)


"presumptuous - definition, audio pronuncation and more for presumptuous: rude *because of doing *something although you know you do not have a right to do it: See more"

Source : dictionary.cambridge.org

"Police arrested him for being *drunk and disorderly*(= violent or noisy in a public place *because of being *drunk)." http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/drunk_1


"funny or amusing, especially *because of being* strange or unexpected" http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/comical

"Able  to be easily carried or moved, especially *because of being* a lighter and smaller version than usual: _a portable __television_" -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/es/definicion/ingles_americano/portable

"Worth remembering or easily remembered, especially *because** of being* special or unusual: _he __recalled__ memorable __moments__ in his life"_ http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/memorable

"(Of a person or company) considered suitable to receive credit, especially *because** of being *reliable in paying money back in the past." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/creditworthy

 Well I think these are irrefutable evidences of the existence of “because of –ing” in proper English. I hope you guys have the courage to accept and admit you were wrong.


----------



## panjandrum

fangoso said:


> Well, I don't understand why I got my posts deleted, I'm new to the forum, but I hope you don't delete this one, panjandrum.
> ..


There are many examples of this usage.  That is the point I was making in my post just above yours.
But you must also take into account the response of native speakers in this thread.
Just because something is used, and does not break the rules of grammar, does not make it "good English".  What you are hearing, above, is the considered opinion of a number of fluent English speakers, all of whom consider that this usage is best avoided.


----------



## fangoso

panjandrum said:


> Just because something is used, and *does* *not break the rules of grammar*, does not make it "good English".



If it does not break the rules of grammar then it is grammatical English, therefore it is good English, it's simple. Despite the opinion of some fluent English speakers, what I linked is from Oxford's and Cambridge dictionaries, I mean OXFORD and CAMBRIDGE!!, so "because of-ing" is definetily very unusual but it is also definetily correct.


----------



## JustKate

I just have to point out that grammatical English is not the same as good English. A sentence that is awkward, odd or difficult to understand isn't good English, even if it is grammatical English. You need to get the idea out of your head, fangoso, that "grammatical" equals "good." 

That said, while I'm not crazy about "because of doing," and I really don't recommend that you use it, I definitely hear it. To me it sounds as though somebody started to say something different and switched verbs in mid-sentence. But if you want to use it, feel free.


----------



## panjandrum

fangoso said:


> If it does not break the rules of grammar then it is grammatical English, therefore it is good English, it's simple.
> ...


That, fangoso, is a point on which we can never agree.
Good English is much, much more than grammatically acceptable English.


----------

