Language desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 13

Correct usage of the word "why" in a sentence?

Is it more correct to say "Here is a list of reasons why..." or "Here is a list of reasons on why..."? Sneazy (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is definitely wrong. I think the choice is between "list of reasons why" and "list of reasons that". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an explanation that justifies your answer? Or are you just speaking from your intuition? Sneazy (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"reasons on why" does get 3.5 million ghits, so it's obviously a newish development that had not yet hit me between the eyes. On the other hand "reasons why" gets 389 million ghits and "reasons that" gets 127 million. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you base your justification on popularity? In formal English, no matter how popular double negatives are in sentences, they are incorrect grammatically. I am talking about sentences like this: "I ain't got no money, sir."Sneazy (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Correctness", being an arbitrary standard set by style-gurus with no authority beyond what people choose to ascribe to them, is not going to be reflected in popularity. Current English probably is so reflected. --ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasons on" (in this context) is extremely peculiar phrasing. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The words "on" and "why" after "reason" are usually unnecessary, as is "because". However, the use of "reason", "why" and "because" together is a well established tautological overlap, and is not illegal. "Ours is not to reason; Ours is but to do or die" doesn't quite work. Also it's worth restating that Google result counts are a meaningless metric.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google hit counts are Large Random Numbers™. 86.146.106.166 (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasons as to why" would also be valid. I can't say that "Reasons on why" is invalid, it's superfluous and unusual, but personally it doesn't trigger my grammatical alarm. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasons on why" is not something that a native speaker of English would say. "Reason for" is acceptable (but not "reason for why"). Not "reason on". I don't know the reason why. I don't know the reason for that. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although "for why" was good enough for William Kethe to include in Old 100th back in the 16th Century: "For why? the Lord our God is good; / His mercy is for ever sure...".[1] Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't accept "reason on why" as standard English, but I don't have a problem with "reason for why". Is there a reason for why you don't like that phrase? The "for" is of course not necessary, but I would mark it as an intensifier. Matt Deres (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would go so far as to say that "reason for why" is not contemporary standard British English. It may be standard in other Englishes, and I'm sure people will comment. Ages since I heard that hymn. "For to do" was also common in the past. "For to hear the fond tale of the sweet nightingale as she sings in the valley below." Itsmejudith (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you - the phrase just illumined a lightbulb in my head that had to be shared. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmejudith, I yearn to agree with you, but these 2.3 million ghits for "reasons on why" tell me we're a little behind the times. I don't believe these are all non-native speakers of English. Funny, it got 3.5 million when I searched yesterday (see my reference above); maybe, in a pleasing development, it's very quickly losing popularity. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, it must still be going down! I get only 1.75 million for "reason on why" compared with 105 million for "reason why", but Google searches are variable and regional, of course. They tell you what Google thinks you want to hear! I recall being taught that even "reason why" is tautological, and that good writers would simply say "Here is a list of reasons ..." ( for whatever Sneazy's full sentence was). The colloquial phrase "the reason why is because" is double tautology, of course, but it gets over 8 million hits, many of them explaining why it's wrong. "For why?" would be considered poetic or dated usage in modern English. Dbfirs 21:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"reason(s) on why" makes no sense to me. It is an impossible combination of words. 86.151.119.226 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]