the temporal subordinator "since"

[Jonathan Lighter]

It is, Beverly, it is !

  Maybe I'm whacking a dead horse (I certainly hope so), but for many years "pseudo-Whorfianism" was the place to be for a great many cultural theorists.

  JL

Beverly Flanigan <flanigan at OHIO.EDU> wrote:
  ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: Beverly Flanigan
Subject: Re: the temporal subordinator "since"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why on earth would this be the case??? Sounds pseudo-Whorfian!

At 04:44 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote:
>To pick up a thread from another thread : Does the widespread use of
>logical "since" show that anglophone culture has a poor understanding of
>causality ? Does this usage actually promote the _post hoc_ fallacy ?
>
> JL
>
>
>"Arnold M. Zwicky" wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
>Sender: American Dialect Society
>Poster: "Arnold M. Zwicky"
>Subject: the temporal subordinator "since"
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>one of my students, doug kenter, is working on the choice between the
>subordinators "since" and "because" as markers of logical connection
>(reason or cause). what a great many stylebooks insist on is that
>"since" is not to be used that way -- it is acceptable only in its
>original sense as a marker of temporal connection -- and must
>(almost) always be replaced by "because". this is, of course, silly;
>logical "since" has been around since the 15th century, and is easy
>to find in "good writing".
>
>the proscription against logical "since" (and "while") is usually
>justified on the basis of ambiguity avoidance, but this is also
>silly: as many people have pointed out, it's extremely hard to find
>an example where, *in context*, there is any serious doubt about
>which of the two uses of "since" was intended. with some work, you
>can concoct such example, but in real life the issue virtually never
>arises, so the proscription avoids a largely non-existent problem.
>
>actually, we've been realizing over the past week, real-life examples
>of *temporal* "since" are pretty thin on the ground, once you exclude:
>(a) the preposition "since" ("since the beginning of the
>century"), which is always temporal;
>(b) occurrences of "ever since" ("ever since the century began"),
>which are also always temporal;
>(c) occurrences of "since" with time-measure expressions ("It's
>been six weeks since we've seen a movie"), where it is, once again,
>always temporal.
>
>there are probably more such restricted environments.
>
>(note, by the way, that "ever since" is another place where "ever"
>occurs with a universal reading. here i refer back to a thread from
>a little while ago (12-15 september) on universal "ever".)
>
>it begins to look like, while usage advisers are trying to stamp out
>logical "since" (and preserve temporal "since"), the users of the
>language are moving in the opposite direction, by giving up temporal
>"since" (and preserving logical "since"), except in a few special
>contexts. putting the idea another way, it begins to look like
>"since" is now primarily a logical subordinator, with some special
>temporal uses. (indeed, there are some contexts where logical
>"since" is hugely preferable to "because" -- in speech-act
>adverbials, for example, as in "Since/??Because you asked me, I'm
>trying to grow a beard.")
>
>we still need to find out whether there is now this disparity between
>logical and temporal "since". meanwhile, we know nothing about the
>history of the temporal subordinator "since". it's possible that the
>first question has already been answered in the literature (the
>Longman Grammar has data, discussed on p. 848, that suggest different
>usages in different genres, with temporal "since" dominating logical
>"since" in all genres except academic writing and (to a lesser
>degree) fiction, but its counts include examples of types (b) and (c)
>above, so it's hard to know how to interpret them). if the first
>question hasn't been answered, or if the answer is in the negative,
>then probably no one has thought to look at frequencies of different
>uses over time.
>
>all very speculative at this point, and we could be wrong.
>
>arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great
>rates starting at 1¢/min.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org



---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org