0

Can you come up with an example, in which "No reason why" would be one separate sentence, perhaps, a short answer in a dialogue? (So, such constructions as "There is no reason why we shouldn't..." must not be considered.)

Heartspring
  • 8,600
  • 6
  • 43
  • 73
brilliant
  • 8,970
  • 1
    You might wanna delete the superfluous "-e" in the title. It's very exotic and Italianate, but I'm afraid they actually say ragione. – Percy P. Jan 04 '11 at 07:23
  • 2
    Strunk & White specifically warned against the construction "reason why", on the grounds that every reason is a reason why. – Michael Lorton Feb 22 '11 at 00:45
  • @Malvolio: "...every reason is a reason why" - How about a "reason to"?: "I've got every reason on earth to be mad, 'cause I've just lost the only girl I had." ("I'll cry instead", Beatles) – brilliant Feb 22 '11 at 04:22
  • 1
    "to" in that sentence is not an independent word, it's not a preposition, it's just part of the infinitive verb "to be". – Michael Lorton Feb 22 '11 at 22:52
  • @Malvolio: And so then? What's your ultimate point here? And how about such sentences like: "Well, you have no reason not to. That's what our life is all about, after all." - Do you think we could say that here the particle "to" is also a part of infinitive verb, while the verb itself is not even mentioned in the sentence? – brilliant Feb 22 '11 at 23:51
  • @Malvolio: Plus, we can come up with probably millions of examples with "reasons for": "There is no reason for these elections", "What's the main reason for press restrictions" and so on. – brilliant Feb 22 '11 at 23:56
  • 1
    Not only do I think we can say it, I do, in fact, say it. I not only do say it, I say it and I think I'm right. Conversational English has a lot of places where we just cut out understood words (not as many as Spanish, which removes nominative pronouns if they they can be inferred!) Strunk's, White's, and my objection to the "reason why" is not that it's grammatically incorrect, but that it's redundant. – Michael Lorton Feb 23 '11 at 00:01
  • 1
    @brilliant -- I'm OK with "reason to" and "reason for". I just don't have a reason why we should ever say "reason why". Other than somewhat labored irony, of course. – Michael Lorton Feb 23 '11 at 00:03
  • @Malvolio: "That's the reason we are still studying very carefully" and "That's the reason why we are still studying very carefully" - Isn't it like these two sentences are quite different in meaning? In the first sentence the reason is the object of their study, so we know what they are studying; but in the second sentence it is the motive that causes them to keep on studying, so we know nothing about what exactly it is that they are studying. – brilliant Feb 23 '11 at 02:04
  • 1
    @brilliant -- Are you claiming that most English speakers would interpret "That's the reason we are still studying" as meaning "We are still studying that reason" and not "We are still studying because of that reason"? Mmmm, do the test. Send an email to several friends and ask them how they interpret it. I predict few people will even understand your interpretation, let alone agree with it. – Michael Lorton Feb 23 '11 at 04:19
  • @Malvolio: (1) "Are you claiming that most English speakers would interpret..." – I am not claiming anything, I am just asking. My point is not about how the most English speakers would interpret that phrase when taken out of the context. My point is whether or not it is possible that in a certain context that phrase (without "why") could convey a different meaning. Imagine a board of scientists giving a report about recent studies, which they have conducted in the field of – brilliant Feb 23 '11 at 09:57
  • (2) industrial chemistry. One of them is reporting: “Just one year ago a lot of things were not clear to us: We didn’t know why the amount of residual oxygen in oxidation reactions was so small. We didn’t know why the catalytic activity of all known catalyst compositions was low. And we were really in the dark as to why the mentioned catalysts were so weak in the ammoxidation of propylene to acrylonitrile. Today, however, we are – brilliant Feb 23 '11 at 11:50
  • (3) proud to state that all those questions have been answered. The only question that is still bothering us today is why the conversion to acrylonitrile drops in spite of the fact that 5 percent of unreacted propylene still remains. That's the reason we are still studying very carefully and diligently these days, as we all believe that the very core of ammoxidation developments lies in this matter.” – brilliant Feb 23 '11 at 11:51
  • 1
    @brilliant -- first, thanks for your thoughtful reply. The subtle details of language give it its richness. Second, though I believe you are correct that in the emphasized sentence, "reason" refers to that unknown cause of the drop in acrylonitrile conversion, but I had to read it a dozen time. My instinct was to read the sentence as if they had written "reason why", though I couldn't understand why a chemical reaction would cause diligent study. Rather than rely on everyone else using the otherwise redundant "why", thereby distinguishing this case, I would rewrite the sentence. – Michael Lorton Feb 24 '11 at 03:10
  • See this answer for more on the reason why. – John Lawler Jun 21 '14 at 17:53
  • You might also use reason why if you want to distinguish the claimed reason someone gives from the actual reason why that thing is the way it is. Reason does have multiple meanings, and sometimes you want to be precise. Unless you're writing poetry it's better to use the extra word and be more clearly understood. – Stuart F Oct 08 '23 at 14:50

1 Answers1

2

Mother says

Why are you always so naughty?

Child says

No reason why.