World of confusion

You'll get little argument to the proposition that the rules for English grammar and usage are confusing and contradictory. There are plenty of reasons for this, and one is that even the experts can't always agree on what's right.

Take the issue of since and because, which I blogged about on 4.25.07. "When Words Collide," the textbook that I use in my university level writing class, says the two words have different uses and shouldn't be freely swapped. That is, don't use since to mean because. The rule makes sense to me and it's not a hard one to remember. Each semester, I teach it to my students.

But in her popular volume on grammar, "Woe Is I," author Patricia T. O'Conner dismisses the since/because issue as the sort of nitpicking that only "an extremely conservative grammarian" would engage in. She goes on to advise her readers to forget that they ever heard the rule, which she trashes in a chapter entitled "The Living Dead."

I have O'Conner's book, and I find it a fun, helpful read. But I'll probably stick with what "When Words Collide," another worthy reference, decrees about since and because, and continue teaching it to my classes. Why? Because as e-mail, texting and instant messaging become popular, grammar and usage rules are being increasingly trashed. I hate to subscribe to slippery slope arguments, but in some instances – this being one – they're fitting. In another generation, our written language may be unrecognizable and incomprehensible, reduced to sporting the cryptic communication value of graffiti.

Let's take a stand on rules that make sense and are easily grasped, like the one for since and because. Sure, the conventions of grammar must change. They always have. But they should be careful and reasoned changes, not whimsical and convenient ones.