# בגלל ש



## trigel

Why is it wrong? If בגלל כי is okay, then בגלל ש should be okay too.
And calling biglal she- wrong for that reason would make other things like mipnei she- wrong...


----------



## origumi

trigel said:


> Why is it wrong? If בגלל כי is okay, then בגלל ש should be okay too.


בגלל ש and בגלל כי are either both "correct" or "incorrect". The reason to say they are incorrect is that בגלל is in _construct state_ thus requires a noun or name to follow, not ש or כי. The reason to say they are correct is that they started to be in use long time ago, long enough.


----------



## GeriReshef

I must add that today nobody will say בגלל כי.
I assume it was used in the era of the Geonim because there was no Hebrew Academy in this time, and their native language was Arabic..


----------



## C_J

They're both incorrect, but בגלל ש is tolerated in informal speech.
As for "why?", because "בגלל ש" is not a real word but a bastardised hybrid of "בגלל" and "מפני ש" (and the like).

בגלל is a conjunction word that is ought to be used in *compound sentences only* and can be substituted with בעקבות, עקב בשל, בזכות and others
יוסי זכה בתחרות בגלל/בשל/בזכות היותו ספורטאי מוכשר.
אני עייף בגלל/בשל שעות העבודה הרבות.
אסור להיכנס למתחם הר הבית מפאת/מחמת/בגלל קדושתו.

Note that in the above examples, you can also use "מפני/משום" and others. But *unlike *the above examples (which *ought not be used* in complex sentences), מפני/משום can take a "ש..." and be used in *complex sentences* replacing "כי". 
יוסי זכה בתחרות, כי/מפני ש/משום ש הוא ספורטאי מוכשר.
אני עייף, כי/מפני ש/משום ש אני עובד הרבה שעות.
אסור להיכנס למתחם הר הבית, כי/משום ש/מפני ש הוא קדוש.

יוסי זכה בתחרות בגלל הוא ספורטאי מוכשר/יוסי זכה בתחרות בגלל שהוא ספורטאי מוכשר. Are wrong, full stop.


----------



## arielipi

Personally, I think it could have been the outcome of an omit.
בגלל *זה *ש
so, yes, if you omit the ze you get biglal she, though with an oged(?) it is ok.
Thoughts?


----------



## C_J

arielipi said:


> Personally, I think it could have been the outcome of an omit.
> בגלל *זה *ש
> so, yes, if you omit the ze you get biglal she, though with an oged(?) it is ok.
> Thoughts?



Sorry, but no, it's not ok. "בגלל זה ש" is not a valid term, and no, oged has nothing to do with this.

Examples with kinui remez as a copula (oged) "הפרח הזה יפה" + "הפרח הזה ורוד"; 
compound sentence: "הפרח הזה יפה בגלל היותו ורוד" or "בגלל היותו ורוד, הפרח הזה יפה"
complex sentence: "הפרח הזה יפה מפני שהוא ורוד"

Try substituting "בגלל" with a different conjunction. If you can use "בשל" you can use "בגלל". If you can use "כי" you ought not use "בגלל".
Since we already have so many conjunctions to chose from, it's really unnecessary to coin new ones.


----------



## arielipi

Correction to myself:
בגלל הסיבה ש
is ok?
בגלל שאיחרת פספסנו את האוטובוס
is transformed
בגלל הסיבה (הזאת) שאיחרת פספסנו את האוטובוס.


----------



## C_J

בגלל איחורך, פספסנו את האוטובוס. Is ok. "אתה איחרת! בגללך/בגלל זה פספסנו את האוטובוס!"  Is ok.
משום/מאחר/מפני/כיוון/מכיוון/מאחר/ שאיחרת, פספסנו את האוטובוס. Is ok. 

Let me make it clear:
"ש..." is used as part of "מילת שיעבוד", and its there to mark the dependent clause. It *ought not occure *in the same sentence as בגלל.

Historically, בגלל and למרות were attested only on simple and compound sentences. Nonetheless, as you know, they both are widely used everywhere nowadays. And you know what? If you insist on using them so much, go ahead and use בגלל ש/למרות ש as much as you want if it makes you feel better.

It will not change the fact that this usage is of low formality and register.


----------



## origumi

C_J said:


> Let me make it clear:
> "ש..." is used as part of "מילת שיעבוד", and its there to mark the dependent clause. It simply* cannot occure *in the same sentence as בגלל.


As notes in the link provided by the thread opener, בגלל ש and the variants ,בגלל אשר, בגלל כי, do appear in several layers of Hebrew, for example the early Modern Hebrew 
writers אליעזר בן יהודה, שלום עליכם, יוסף חיים ברנר, בוקי בן יגלי, שמואל ליב ציטרון, and of course in everyday modern Hebrew. Therefore "it simply *cannot occur*" and alike are out of context.


----------



## C_J

origumi said:


> As notes in the link provided by the thread opener, בגלל ש and the variants ,בגלל אשר, בגלל כי, do appear in several layers of Hebrew, for example the early Modern Hebrew
> writers אליעזר בן יהודה, שלום עליכם, יוסף חיים ברנר, בוקי בן יגלי, שמואל ליב ציטרון, and of course in everyday modern Hebrew. Therefore "it simply *cannot occur*" and alike are out of context.



I agree, since this is controversial, I shouldn't have used that specific wording.
*Fixed to "ought not", as this is not only my personal opinion but so is the Academy's.

Standardisation of Hebrew only began in 1890 and was never completed. Many non standard words and pronunciations persist, and many of them are quite popular.
Popular usage (like "Where are you at?") or old/ancient precedents do not necessarily mean that it's grammatically correct, nor does it imply good style.

Since we do have the Academy, we better stick to its decisions as much as possible, lest we will end up with more varieties of Hebrew than there are varieties of English (which is not standardised).


----------



## arielipi

What is your intention here cj? When helping people, visualize it they will meet colloquial speech, so I am giving them answers according to what is used, not to what is correct; think it is better.


----------



## airelibre

If biglal she is wrong because biglal is in construct state, is mipnei she not wrong also?


----------



## trigel

As far as I glean from the above, it has nothing to do with construct state. Davka biglal she-/ki is wrong because, basically, stam (biglal isn't like that, and the Akademya said so). I will accept if that is the case.

(EDIT: The Akademya unfortunately doesn't seem take a position... it does note that biglal she- is an Aramaic calque, popularized in the 19th century. Please let me know if my Hebrew-fu has failed me)

(EDIT 2: @arielipi: I specifically asked about normative usage.)


----------



## origumi

trigel said:


> As far as I glean from the above, it has nothing to do with construct state.


This contradicts the link you referred to in the initial post:





> המילה בגלל היא במקור צורת  סמיכות של המילה גָּלָל (שהיא עצמה אינה מצויה בתנ"ך), בתוספת ב' השימוש. והצירוף "בגלל ה.." הוא צירוף סמיכות שבו המילה גלל היא הנסמך והמילה המתחילה  ב-"ה.." היא הסומך. מכאן, שאפשר להסביר את פסילת הצירוף "בגלל ש.." בכך  שאין להשתמש בש' הזיקה לאחר שם עצם בצורת נסמך.


http://www.safa-ivrit.org/style/biglal.php



airelibre said:


> If biglal she is wrong because biglal is in construct state, is mipnei she not wrong also?


מפני ש is also rare in early Hebrew. If I didn't miss any, of the ~200 instances of מפני is the Bible, only 2 are מפני אשר (Exodus 19:19, Jeremiah 44:23), 0 (zero) מפני ש or מפני כי. So I think it's safe to assume that מפני shares the same structure of בגלל, and therefore experienced the same natural "mistake" of adding ש (or אשר or כי), and the reason that מפני ש was rehabilitated is these two Biblical instances.


----------



## C_J

arielipi said:


> What is your intention here cj? When helping  people, visualize it they will meet colloquial speech, so I am giving  them answers according to what is used, not to what is correct; think it  is better.


Well, on my first post I immediately said that "בגלל ש is tolerated in informal speech"
I later added (rather bitterly LOL) that "Historically, בגלל and למרות were attested almost only in simple and  compound sentences. Nonetheless, as you know, they both are widely used  everywhere nowadays. And you know what? If you insist on using them so  much, go ahead and use בגלל ש/למרות ש as much as you want to, if it  makes you feel better."




airelibre said:


> If biglal she is wrong because biglal is in construct state, is mipnei she not wrong also?





trigel said:


> As far as I glean from the above, it has nothing to do with construct state. Davka biglal she-/ki is wrong because, basically, stam (biglal isn't like that, and the Akademya said so). I will accept if that is the case.
> 
> (EDIT: The Akademya unfortunately doesn't seem take a position... it does note that biglal she- is an Aramaic calque, popularized in the 19th century. Please let me know if my Hebrew-fu has failed me)
> 
> 
> (EDIT 2: @arielipi: I specifically asked about normative usage.)


"בגלל ש" was found in scrolls authored by the end of the first century  BC, it reflects the frequent use of the Aramaic בגלל ד, and it's _unrelated _to its popular resurgence in the 19th century.

The academy's stance is that they don't know/can't explain why משום/מפני and others can be used with ש while בגלל/למרות cannot, so they don't outright forbid it. But they do suggest to use the other conjunctions that were already often attested as being used with ש.

And yes, many of their rullings seem to be completely arbitrary (last one that comes to mind, is when they refused to approve the already widely used "איכותני" and "כמותני" as the official Hebrew terms for the English "qualitative" and "quantitative". They said something along the lines of that these words have undistinguishably the same meaning as "איכותי" and "כמותי" )


----------



## amikama

*Discussions that were off-topic to this thread have been moved to new threads: 
כמותני / איכותני
Anglicism/loanwords in Hebrew

Please try to stay on the topic of each thread. 
If you wish to talk about a related subject that is different from the subject of the thread, please open a new thread*.


----------

