grammaticality - Does a comma come between because and although?

I am editing answer explanations for a school curriculum. The more I read the phrase "because although", the more stumped I become on whether there should be a comma between because and although. Here's a basic example:

After a short reading passage, a question asks for the main idea and then gives multiple choice answers. Let's say Choice A is "The narrator hates lemons." The answer explanation then reads:

"Choice A is incorrect because although the narrator does say she hates lemons, this is not the main idea of the passage."

I've been putting a comma ("because, although the narrator does say she hates lemons, this is not the main idea...") because I regard that phrase as parenthetical and unnecessary. Without it, the explanation would read, "Choice A is incorrect because this is not the main idea of the passage." The antecedent for this is in the answer choice. The use of although is more of a concession to the student who misinterpreted the passage (Yes, it does talk about lemons, but that's not the main idea).

So... comma or no comma?

These are read by middle school and high school students and their teachers.

Answer

It is interesting to see the usage in the NYT. I see instances where a comma is used. I see just as many where it isn't. With one exception in twenty, every article printed prior to 1950 appears to use "because, although." Removing the comma could be a (relatively) new convention.

If students are confused, it should always be possible to restructure the sentence to separate the two words.

"Although the narrator does say she hates lemons, choice A is incorrect because this is not the main idea of the passage."

Irregular past tense confusion with compound noun/verb. More examples?

Students of martial arts may be familiar with a breakfall, which can (depending on the situation) be treated as a noun or a verb.

I am often amused when speakers, even native English speakers (myself included!), stumble over the past tense because of the double-irregularity. I've heard breakfalled, breakfell, brokefall, and brokefell - most try one combination or another and then switch to did a breakfall.

I was wondering if people had other examples of this phenomenon, and whether there is a canonically correct past tense form?

EDIT: Prompted by the discussion, for those interested, a breakfall may be defined as any of several ways of 'receiving' a technique, but in Western parlance most often refers to a method of slapping the ground (mat) just at the moment of impact, when you are thrown. This provides a reactive force and lessens the whole body impact if you are unable to roll out. (See uke/ukemi for the Japanese perspective).

Answer

Here's an example of the neologism on-lend (give a loan with money lent from other companies)...

...central bank credit was a major source of finance for banks (on-lended at fixed spreads)...

...which illustrates the general principle that verb nelogisms are normally regular. The established pattern over centuries is that irregular verbs are disappearing; so long as the nelogism is genuinely perceived as a "new" verb (as it probably is with breakfall, on-lend), it's automatically treated as a regular verb by default. So just use breakfalled.

---

EDIT: I should point out there's no definitive authority specifying how any given verb neologism will be conjugated before usage becomes established custom and practice. For example...

Google Books favours troubleshot over troubleshooted by about 7:1. But on Google Internet (which I assume represents more widespread current usage), the bias is only half that. My guess is that as people get more used to troubleshoot as an "independent" verb, they'll increasingly regularise it.

But all "authorities" now seem to agree that for the baseball (ex-)neologism to fly out (to hit a fly ball), the "correct" past tense is flied out (not flew out).

My suggestion for OP to use the regular form is partly based on the fact that I have absolutely no idea what breakfalling is, so I make no close connection between the neologism and the component (verbs?) break and fall. And either or both could be seen as "nouns", which would make me even less inclined to replicate the irregular verb forms.

What word is an adjective meaning "not first"?

In the following sentences, what single word can I use to summarize the ordinal numbers second, third, fourth, etc.?

When you take your second, third, fourth, etc. flu shot, call me.

If you have your second, third, fourth, etc. dessert, you might get a stomach ache.

When you have your second, third, fourth, etc. child, avail of this family planning class.

I've looked at this related question but the words subsequent, later, other, and contender do not seem to fit this context.

In particular, taking the first example, using "subsequent" changes the object to plural.

When you take your subsequent flu shots, call me.

I'm looking for a word that keeps it in singular form as I am not referring to the whole set of flu shots after the first one, but rather to the specific second, or third, or fourth, etc. instance of that flu shot.

hyphenation - Is a hyphen or a dash longer?

Can anyone confirm if the hyphen or dash is longer? Which one is longer than the other and which one is the shorter?

word choice - "Replace with" versus "replace by"

I often see "replace with" and "replace by" used interchangeably, but this doesn't sound right to me:

I replaced that component by this one.

I would use "with" in such a sentence. "By" only seems reasonable in passive, although "with" sounds like it would there work too:

That component was replaced by this one.
That component was replaced with this one.

In my native language, the equivalent of "replace by" can only be used in passive, and even then it's a bit weird unless a person is the object replacing something – perhaps this affects my judgment?

Web searches haven't come up with anything conclusive; the results are contradictory and speculative at best.

Are "replace with" and "replace by" interchangeable in active context? What about passive? Are there stylistic reasons to prefer one over the other?

Answer

OP is right to suspect active/passive has a bearing on preferred usage. From Google Books...

1: Active voice favours with...
The company replaced workers by machines - 3 results
The company replaced workers with machines - 405 results

2: Passive voice favours by...
Workers were replaced by machines - 280 results
Workers were replaced with machines - 5 results

To be honest, I can't say I think there's anything wrong with the "less favoured" versions above, and it would be ridiculous to suggest there's any semantic difference. But note that whereas...

Tom replaced Dick by Harry
Tom replaced Dick with Harry

...are both equivalent (manager Tom took Dick off the team, and put Harry in instead), if we want to put that into the "passive" voice, we can only recast it as...

Dick was replaced by Tom with Harry
...or (more likely, imho)...
Dick was replaced with Harry by Tom

That's to say, if the "passive" form actually specifies the "agent", we have to use by for that agent. So we can only use with for the "replacement" in such (slightly contrived) constructions.

grammar - About 'wh' questions with prepositions

Here is an example making sort of curious things for me

"who are customers with questions advised to speak with"

In the above sentence, what does "with" function at the end of it?

Simply, next to verb 'speak', dose this just work that say something with someone as a verb phrase?

or

assisting 'who' to make sure to represent a meaning who customers should ask their questions to?

and, if it is correct in the second case, is it able to be replaced by other sentences like "with whom are customers with questions advised to speak" or "who are customers with questions advised to speak to" ?

orthography - Cedent or Cedant

In insurance it is very common to refer to a company who cedes some risk, but the spelling is inconsistent. Sometimes it is spelt "cedent" and sometimes it is spelt "cedant".

Which is more correct? Both see usage online and both suffixes seem to make sense.

I notice the related questions Is there a rule for “‑ance” vs. “‑ence”? and duplicate pattern to predict -ent vs -ant? but they doesn't seem to settle the question in this case beyond that one of them is definitely right!