Why does the author use a comma in the above sentence instead of “your mill.” My problem with the ambiguity is that it isn’t as great in your example as it may be in some others. But, when such a thing happens, even including the comma should be helpful.

If you could have no problem with a

simple example, consider this one: I want my estate to go to my housekeeper in part because she did so much to make my day to day life more pleasant. I want her to be the president of my estate, who presides over the money and who cares about the welfare of my son.

“Hear this housekeeper, if they are supposed to see the entire estate of the housekeeper “; what commas should be permitted next to part because and not behind because? I think my estate will go to my housekeeper in part because she did so much to make my day-to-day life more pleasant. (Not to be confused with “because”).

If the housekeeper is supposed to get everything, and

I want my estate to go to my housekeeper in part, because she was so much to make my day-to-day life more pleasant.

If the housekeeper is supposed to get something, he/she must use something.

Is homekeeper in part self contained and the intention of the testator was to give all of the estate to the housekeeper in part? Why are lawyers always with us?

What should I do if a comma should go before it? In part means not exclusively, etc. So putting the comma here “in part, because says in this sentance, because the housekeeper made my life so pleasant was only one part or is just one reason why I want her to have my estate. He’s not the primary reason, but the final or the only reason. There are many other grounds

for this.