is ambiguous between a ‘reason’ and a ‘plain cause’ interpretation. Presenting a semantic analysis within the framework of Discourse Representation Theory, I argue that
always denotes a causal relation between causing facts and caused entites of various sorts and that its interpretational variance is dependent on the ontological nature of the caused entity. Finally, I point to a difference between sentential-complement
with regard to their interaction with modals. Whereas both
may outscope e.g. deontic necessity modals, only
may outscope epistemic modal operators.