Within the ranking of doubts and hesitations, there is one that stands high: the difference between why, why, why and why in all its variants, ie, together or separate, with or without tilde .
Let’s start with the variant in two words and with tilde: why. This is a combination of a preposition (by) and an interrogative or, sometimes, exclamative (what). It serves to ask for the cause of something. Their most frequent and clearest use is found in direct interrogative sentences:
(1) Why do not you get married?
If we read aloud the previous sentence, we will realize that what is tonic . That explains that carries a diacritical accent that distinguishes it from other parks in prayer lack prosodic accent .
Why it is also used in indirect interrogative sentences, such as:
(2) I do not know why you do not marry.
As we see, here the interrogative what is tonic, justifying its diacritical accent. In the previous sentence, we can recognize that we are faced with an indirect question because we have the possibility of constructing the corresponding direct question:
(3) There is one thing I do not know: why do not you marry?
If we are clear of this first use, the second is also within reach, that is, together and without tilde: because. In eighty percent of cases, this is nothing but the answer to a “why”:
(4) Why do not I marry? Because I do not feel like it.
In the previous example we have the complete sequence of question and answer: Why …? Because … Needless to say, the question can be understood and that we can find the blessed because without a previous question, as here:
(5) He did not marry because he did not want to.
But then we can ask the corresponding question, as is easy to verify. Whenever we can find him a why? To ours because, you will mean that it is written together and without accent. In this use, because it is a causal conjunction, that is, it has the function of introducing a sentence that explains the motive of something.
Thirdly we have the why, in a word, with tilde and with the article ahead. This is a noun that comes from the lexicalization of the interrogative sequence that we saw in the first place. We can paraphrase it as the motive. It is always written together and accented and is the easiest to recognize thanks to the article, which is mandatory in front. Let’s look at an example:
(6) When analyzing the reason for that optical illusion, I soon find its cause [José Ortega y Gasset: Ideas and beliefs ].
Since it is a noun for all purposes, we can even pluralize it:
(7) When I analyze the reasons for this optical illusion, I soon find its cause.
It is easy to make sure that, as we said, it can be replaced by the substantive motive:
(8) When analyzing the motive of that optical illusion, I soon find its cause.
(9) When I analyze the motives of that optical illusion, I soon find its cause.
The least frequent sequence is the one that is written in two words and without tilde: why. I leave it to the end because, for practical purposes, it is the one that presents us the least difficulties, since it appears in few occasions. Here we can have two very different syntactic structures under the same form. In the first case, it is a preposition governed by a verb followed by a conjunction. It can not be fused in a word precisely because the preposition depends on the verb:
(10) The governor was concerned that the electoral process had developed smoothly.
The verb to worry governs the preposition by; To worry is to worry about something It is no longer that fusing the preposition with the conjunction that comes to be like stripping the verb of something that belongs to it, is that if we do this the meaning can be modified radically. Compare the sentence (10) with this one:
(11) The governor was concerned that the electoral process had developed neatly.
If example (10) meant that the governor put all his efforts into ensuring the cleanliness of the process, in (11) what we have is a causal conjunction and what indicates is that the cleaning of the process is a cause of concern for the governor; Come on, he does not have much interest in the elections being clean. Whereas the verb of (10) has the meaning of ‘to occupy’, that of (11), on the other hand, has to ‘worry’. With a simple lack of spelling we are turning the meaning around and we can be slandering an entire servant of the state (imagine what we can organize).
The preposition can also depend on a noun (12) or even an adjective. In these cases the writing is kept in two words and without accent:
(12) Company announcements show interest in corporate colors having a symbolic meaning [Elena Añaños et al .: Psychology and advertising communication ].
The other syntactic structure that can be hidden behind this spelling is that formed by the coaparition of a preposition and a relative pronoun (13). It is a cultured and, for that reason, rare. It is not too difficult to recognize because it admits the insertion of an article, as we see in (14):
(13) The reason why the prince commands should be only that God sends it to him [Benito Jerónimo Feijoo: The finest politics ].
(14) The reason why sends the prince should only do so by God commands.
And finally, in order to finish going crazy, there is a case that admits the spelling in two words or in one, but always without accent: when the string sequence has final value, that is, when it indicates a for what, as in (15) and (16):
(15) I will fight for the truth to be known (= so that it is known)
(16) I will fight because the truth is known (= so that it is known)
Both (15) and (16) are correct.
And that’s it. If you have come here, I congratulate you because you have been constant … or, wait, how was it to be written?
Anyway, the best thing for you to realize is that you do an exercise .