Sources of "because"

[*Ceresz]

Swedish has för att (lit. "for to") and därför (att) (therefore, lit. "there for (to)").

Don't forget that att is both a particle to introduce infinitive verbs in some constructions (Eng. to) and the complementiser (Eng. that), so in those examples, I'd translated the att into English as "that" because when "för att" means "because" it is followed by a clause, not an infinitive, which is something that "to" cannot do.

Jag kom för att jag ville se dig.
I came for that I wanted see you.
"I came because I wanted to see you."

Jag kom för att se dig.
I have come for to see you.
"I came (in order) to see you."

Do you pronounce the "att" in both of those phrases the same way?

Personally I would drop the att in the first sentence (at least when speaking) and simply use för. As for the second sentence I would pronounce it as [ɔ] or [o(ː)]. You do have a point though, seeing as I wouldn't pronounce the first att as [atː] if I were to even keep it in the sentence. I would also replace se with träffa or something like that, but that doesn't really matter here.

[jɒː kʰɔm fœ jɒː ˈvɪlːɛ sɛ ɾɛj]

and

[jɒː kʰɔm fœːɾ ɔ ˈtʰɾɛfːa ɾɛj]

Granted, these transcriptions might be slightly off, but I'm too lazy to be picky. They're doing what they're supposed to do.

[hwhatting]

I believe that Russian can also use изо izo together with the genitive case to indicate "because," i.e. я убил себя изо машины "I killed myself because of the car/machine." I don't think it's always allowed, though. Or a better example: Машина убила меня изо неполадок. "The machine has killed me because of malfunctioning."

It's из-за, not изо. из-за is the preposition "because"; I didn't mention it because I understood the OP to be about the conjunction.
BTW, English seems to be relatively alone in using the same word for "because" both as as a preposition and as a conjunction, at least among European languages.

[Imralu]

Oops. Ignore my PM. I meant ti write it here.

IDK, but Spanish "por lo tanto" can be used in both. I imagine ergo would work here (ergo also exists in Spanish, formal written language).
What you're describing there is just a logical consequence of finality. X, therefore Y: if Y is the consequence of X, then X must be the cause of Y. But that doesn't make the conjunction causal...

I just realised why we're disagreeing: I've been using a very loose definition of 'causal', anything indicating a cause-effect relationship, whether it is associated with the cause or effect. Yes, 'hence' goes with the effect. I interpreted 'final' to mean associated with a goal or purpose, such as 'so that' or 'in order to'.

[Ulrike Meinhof]

You do have a point though, seeing as I wouldn't pronounce the first att as [atː] if I were to even keep it in the sentence.

Uhm... then how would you pronounce it?

[*Ceresz]

You do have a point though, seeing as I wouldn't pronounce the first att as [atː] if I were to even keep it in the sentence.

Uhm... then how would you pronounce it?

Oh, that should be *would. Sorry.

[Thry]

I just realised why we're disagreeing: I've been using a very loose definition of 'causal', anything indicating a cause-effect relationship, whether it is associated with the cause or effect. Yes, 'hence' goes with the effect. I interpreted 'final' to mean associated with a goal or purpose, such as 'so that' or 'in order to'.

Aha, I see.

[Monk]

I believe that Russian can also use изо izo together with the genitive case to indicate "because," i.e. я убил себя изо машины "I killed myself because of the car/machine." I don't think it's always allowed, though. Or a better example: Машина убила меня изо неполадок. "The machine has killed me because of malfunctioning."

It's из-за, not изо. из-за is the preposition "because"; I didn't mention it because I understood the OP to be about the conjunction.
BTW, English seems to be relatively alone in using the same word for "because" both as as a preposition and as a conjunction, at least among European languages.

Yes yes, my bad. While babbling to myself today I found myself using из-за and not изо.

[L'alphabētarium]

Do any other languages use 'because' to stonewall? E.g. "Why is the sky blue?" "[Be]cause."

Greek doesn't. Not completely at least...
Instead you answer: "(Γιατί) έτσι." [(ʝa'ti) 'etsi] "(Because) so (it is)."

[Qwynegold]

[...]minšān (< min šān 'from account of'). [...] They also have a benefactive meaning - minšān-ek fī ʿand-i siʿr i-mnīḥ, 'for you I have a good price'.

Hah! In Swedish, minsann can mean something like "oh, is that so?" if used alone. It's kind of a emphasizer, for example that sentence could be translated as "för dig har jag minsann ett bra pris!".

Swedish has för att (lit. "for to") and därför (att) (therefore, lit. "there for (to)").

Don't forget that att is both a particle to introduce infinitive verbs in some constructions (Eng. to) and the complementiser (Eng. that), so in those examples, I'd translated the att into English as "that" because when "för att" means "because" it is followed by a clause, not an infinitive, which is something that "to" cannot do.

Jag kom för att jag ville se dig.
I came for that I wanted see you.
"I came because I wanted to see you."

Jag kom för att se dig.
I have come for to see you.
"I came (in order) to see you."

Do you pronounce the "att" in both of those phrases the same way?

I can pronunce both of them as [ˈatː], but only the second one can be [o].

Finnish has siksi (therefore) and koska (because). I don't know where siksi comes from, but it's similar to miksi (why).

Siksi is the translative case of se ('it'). Miksi is the translative form of mikä ('what').

Ohhhh... *mind blown*

[Imralu]

You do have a point though, seeing as I wouldn't pronounce the first att as [atː] if I were to even keep it in the sentence.

If I appeared to have a point, I can assure you that was entirely unintentional. Just asking. I knew that it could be pronounced as /o/ before an infinitive (as Norwegian å), but I was just curious about what real Swedes say. In English you can say "I have hunger" but it's not natural. How often do people pronounce the infinitive marker as /at:/?

[Io]

Do any other languages use 'because' to stonewall? E.g. "Why is the sky blue?" "[Be]cause."

Bulgarian: защото/понеже. Both translate as 'because' in English although there is a distinction between the two akin to Greek γιατί/επειδή.

[Qwynegold]

How often do people pronounce the infinitive marker as /at:/?

Not very often it seems. :/ Many people even confuse with och in writing.

[Jipí]

It's a sad (?) fact that most people on the internet can't spell and don't care.

[Qwynegold]

*infuriating

[Imralu]

How often do people pronounce the infinitive marker as /at:/?

Not very often it seems. :/ Many people even confuse with och in writing.

I know. I've seen infinitives introduced with <&>.

[*Ceresz]

How often do people pronounce the infinitive marker as /at:/?

Not very often it seems. :/ Many people even confuse with och in writing.

I know. I've seen infinitives introduced with <&>.

It happens, but thankfully not very often. I'd expect it to happen quite a bit when reading a text aloud. People even pronounce de as [deː] when reading aloud. If they spoke a dialect that still distinguishes between de/dem in one way or another (such as di/dôm), it would be fine.

As for the confusion between att and och in writing... well, that can be annoying. There are a few sentences where it'd feel kinda unnatural for me to write att, like Jag ska gå och handla. I would have to add för to make it work -- Jag ska gå för att handla. For some reason, Jag ska gå att handla just feels ridiculous. Maybe I'm just not educated enough .

[Imralu]

As for the confusion between att and och in writing... well, that can be annoying. There are a few sentences where it'd feel kinda unnatural for me to write att, like Jag ska gå och handla. I would have to add för to make it work -- Jag ska gå för att handla. For some reason, Jag ska gå att handla just feels ridiculous. Maybe I'm just not educated enough .

That is actually och though (at least according to the prescriptive rules that I've seen), so you're more educated than you think. Swedish connects a lot of things with och. Jag ska sitta och läsa. Try putting it in the present tense or past tense. Would you say Jag går och handlar or Jag går att handla? The first one, as far as I've seen, is taught as correct, although I see that the second one gets a lot of hits on Google. Quite probably this is something that will change over time as people reanalyse it, like English "rather" becoming a verb.

[*Ceresz]

That is actually och though (at least according to the prescriptive rules that I've seen), so you're more educated than you think. Swedish connects a lot of things with och. Jag ska sitta och läsa. Try putting it in the present tense or past tense. Would you say Jag går och handlar or Jag går att handla? The first one, as far as I've seen, is taught as correct, although I see that the second one gets a lot of hits on Google. Quite probably this is something that will change over time as people reanalyse it, like English "rather" becoming a verb.

Well that's good, now you've put my mind at rest. I always thought that if I can't replace [ɔ] with [atː] in speech it doesn't belong there. I actually can't believe I've never thought about it like you just did. Thanks. This is kinda why I trust non-native teachers more than native ones, unless they've thoroughly studied the language. It took a non-native's eye to make me realize that only -er verbs appear drop the -a in the imperative for instance

Btw, the second sentence, Jag går att handla, sounds like "I'm shopable" or something. Kinda like how Jag går att äta sounds like "I'm eatable .

[Qwynegold]

How often do people pronounce the infinitive marker as /at:/?

Not very often it seems. :/ Many people even confuse with och in writing.

I know. I've seen infinitives introduced with <&>.

OMG >.<