I read an interesting article this morning in the Christian Science Monitor, which has a good words/grammar column. Apparently several dictionaries and societies select a Word of the Year. Oxford Dictionaries selected "selfie" for 2013. But the American Dialect Society, the one that really counts, selected "because", used as a preposition. They said, "This past year, the very old word "because" exploded with new grammatical possibilities,...[such as] tersely worded rationales like 'because science' or 'because reasons'." I've never heard this use, have you?
Geekily,
Abigail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Abigail,
Thank you for the interesting word-geek article. You may be certain that I appreciate this sort of thing as much as you do yourself.
I had heard of the selection of "selfie" as Word of the Year by the Oxford people. That selection made sense as much as any competing candidate word I might have named myself -- and who am I anyway, to compete with the Oxford Dictionaries staff?
This other word, though, this use of "because," makes no sense whatsoever to me. I've never encountered it used prepositionally, and even now, having read the examples which you included, I must say that I can think of no proper usage for it. Perhaps it's a form used in the abominable, nay, execrable, debasement of English common in texting. If such use of "because" can become a recognized word by virtue of its debasement, then no word is safe, and, as the kids say, anything goes.
I reject this word, because no way.
Absolutely,
Rufus
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Rufus,
I'm laughing at your closing use of the new "because!" I also have never encountered its use in that way, so perhaps we are both slightly out of touch with the very abbreviated current methodologies. I have an alternative opinion on the subject, however.
I also agree about the abominable and execrable debasement of English in many respects, yet in many ways I enjoy new adaptations of language. English is constantly evolving to suit current needs, and in the internet age language is evolving more rapidly than in all of history. Needs of the moment include brevity, because of the difficulty of keyboarding on small screens, as well as the overall busy-ness of life, and snappy language, because of the desire to be heard amid an overwhelming deluge of communications. The because-preposition fulfills both these needs: it elimintes a wordy explanation in favor of an eyerolling, all-encompassing, straight-to-the-point rationale. Your "because no way" suits this exactly.
Shakespeare singlehandedly evolved the language of his day probably more broadly than anyone else has in history. No doubt he was roundly criticized for it by his contemporaries, but much of his "new" use of language has passed into common parlance. Such everyday words as "lackluster", "dauntless", "gossip", even "bedroom" are Shakespearean inventions. Moreover, Shakespeare was often noted for the very change that makes the new "because" so abhorrent; he switched parts of speech. Nouns became verbs, verbs becamse adjectives, and so on. Think of "elbow" as a verb, or "hint" as a noun. Shocking!
We ourselves are guilty of language-abuse in the extreme. Look at all the variations of "farb" in use among re-enactors. We've also given "splinching", an already made-up word, a real-life use, and what better purpose can language claim than that?
I think that words are to writers what paint is to an artist, not something circumscribed and limited, but laden with possibilities for creative expression. Yet artistic tastes have changed over time. We no longer consider the dark, iconic paintings of the middle ages to be attractive because they no longer represent what we're thinking about as a society. So too with language. New forms of communication suit new forms of thought and expression.
Not that all evolution in art, or in all language, is good. Some is really awful. So what defines a "good" evolution of language? I think it's about clarity. Misuse of apostrophes, for instance, leads to confusion. It doesn't make language sound cute or fresh, just annoying. (We've just read the chapter on apostrophes in Eats, Shoots & Leaves, by Lynn Truss.) Appropriate changes in language do just the opposite: they clarify. Words like "earworm," "lackluster" and "splinch" eliminate the need for tedious explanations and cut right to the heart of an idea, with both simplicity and elegance.
Progression in language can be startling and confusing, and often produces instinctive aversion. But transforming old language to suit new needs can also be enlightening, refreshing, playful and even exciting. Isn't it interesting that the very wordsmiths most poised to take advantage of the possibilities inherent in the palette of language are often those who are most resistant to adaptations of words?
Adaptively,
Abigail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The discussion continues. What's your opinion, Dear Reader, about the evolution of language?
