• Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    Normally I say the “usage defines meaning” argument is flimsy at best and actively encourages misuse that ultimately limits the ability for precision and nuance in language. ‘Since’ isn’t causal, ‘because’ (as one can guess) is. “I’ve been sick since Thursday” means one thing, “I’ve been dice because of Thursday” means a different thing.

    But then an old farmer will tell you a story about needing to buy some rubbers because they’re getting into their tranny and I think, “those words don’t mean that to me.”

    • Sorchist@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d say that having three different words for “because” increases nuance. As the link to merriam-webster’s article pointed out, you get a nuance of formality between “because” and “as”; “as” is somewhat more formal. I’m not sure if there’s another nuance between “because” and causal “since” but smart money is on there being one (if you survey the use of the two I bet you will find there are very subtle differences of usage there – there almost always are nuances of difference between supposedly synonymous words, even if they’re only differences like level of formality).

      • bleistift2@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Since reading your comment I’ve noted that I don’t use since and because interchangably. I believe because puts emphasis on the reason, while the main focus when using since still lays on the thing being explained.

        “I take the left here, since that route is shorter.” – (Slight) stress on the first part, the latter is “just” a justification.

        – “Why do you take the right when the left route is shorter?” – “I don’t take the left because it is shorter.” Stress on the last part, it’s the main point of that sentence.

    • lugal@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      the “usage defines meaning” argument is flimsy at best

      So what else does? I never understood how you can reason the objective meaning of a bunch of phonemes. If usage doesn’t define meaning, you can look up the meaning in a dictionary. But if it’s a good dictionary, it deduces the meaning of the word by its usage. There is ultimately no other way.

      • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        But then a good dictionary is ultimately personal, contextual, regional, and ephemeral, making it ultimately useless.

        I will never recognise ‘suposably’ as a proper English word. But my children might, and so to their children, until it universally is a correct, proper word. That’s the scope of the tide of language.

        Its a necessary battle between the old ways and the new, one that I know I am ever drifting to the wrong side of. When some people use the word wrong, they are wrong. When everyone uses the word wrong, they are right. The old guard dies and the new gaurd rises.

        • lugal@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well put. That’s not to say that dictionaries are useless. I use them alot but not in my native language since that’s where I know the words. In English, which is my second language, dictionaries are close enough to help me around most of the times. It’s like a map. The map isn’t useless because a new road is build or a cabin is no more. You can still use the map but don’t trust it over reality.