B D Finch Aug 26, 2016:

"Because" If this is Wolf speaking, then the "because" refers back to his question "What have I missed?" and explains why he asked it. By using it, he emphasises his perception of not being fully in the picture, or of his interlocuter having acted irrationally.

On the other hand, if this is somebody else speaking, then the "because" might similarly refer back to something that same speaker had said earlier in the conversation.

BdiL Aug 26, 2016:

Probably, were we to appreciate punctuation marks as different-length hiatuses (not only that, but ALSO that) between words and parts of the discourse, this petty storm in a glass of water would instantly die off. And no credit to 19th-century grammarians would be evoked. Because it would be clear that there should be a means of expressing that PAUSE (hiatus) between because and why which is evident in spoken language, but is not in written form. Besides, those same grammarians would be aspersing sentences with commas without a real logical need for their presence being true. But this is not necessary today. IMHO

Sheila Wilson Aug 26, 2016:

Something wrong somewhere Are you translating a transcript? If so, do you have the audio? Do you know who is saying what?

philgoddard Aug 26, 2016:

It would make sense if there were no closing quotation mark after "London", and the next line were spoken by the same person. If that were the case, "because" would mean "I'm explaining what I said in my last sentence." As it stands, "because" appears to serve no purpose. Either way, I don't think it adds anything to the text.