Author: Kirk

“Because” vs. “Since”

Conjunctions, Devolution toward Simpler, Versus

I read one of these words today where it seemed to me that the other was more appropriate.

Problem:
Most dictionaries treat these two words as synonymous conjunctions, but one is preferable over the other for expressing cause and effect.

Explanation:
Many, if not all, dictionaries indicate that the second or third definition of the word “since” when used as a conjunction is “because”.

An unambiguous example of using “since” as a synonym for “because” is “I kissed her since I love her.”

However, it is easy to construct an ambiguous sentence with the conjunction “since”.

For example, “I decided to learn French since my company moved me to Paris.” has two possible meanings:

  1. A causal meaning — “I decided to learn French because my company moved me to Paris.”;
  2. A temporal meaning — “I decided to learn French after my company moved me to Paris.”

The temporal version clearly tells us when the writer decided to learn French. The causal version tells us why the writer decided to learn French.

A commenter at another website noted that Bryan Garner wrote in his book Garner’s Modern American Usage that the causal meaning of “since” has existed for more than one thousand years.

I believe that the use of “since” as a substitute for the conjunction “because” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to say or write the one-syllable, five-letter “since” than it is to say or write the two-syllable, seven-letter “because”, and clarity can be easily sacrificed for simplicity.

Solution:
To avoid confusion, prefer the conjunction “because” over the conjunction “since” when joining two sentences in a causal relationship. And prefer the conjunction “after” over the conjunction “since” when joining two sentences in a temporal relationship, unless “since” clearly carries a temporal connotation.

“Proportional” vs. “Proportionate”

Adjectives, Versus

I heard one of these adjectives this morning and wondered why the speaker did not use the other.

Question:
Do these two adjectives mean the same thing?

Explanation:
I was watching “Landscapers’ Challenge” on the HGTV channel and heard a designer say something to the effect of “You need a pot that is proportionate to the size of the plant.”

The adjective “proportionate” in her statement struck me as odd because I would have used the adjective “proportional” instead.

Both adjectives date back to late 1300s.

If you look up the definition of “proportionate”, then you will see that one of its definitions is proportional.

In contrast, if you look up the definition of “proportional” in many dictionaries, then you will not see that one of its definitions is proportionate, although “proportionate” is listed as a synonym of “proportional”.

One of the primary definitions of both adjectives is being in proportion.

So these two adjectives essentially mean the same thing.

For fun, and because I was curious about which adjective was more popular on the Web, I searched Google for each of these adjectives and got about the indicated numbers of matches:

  • “proportional” — 32,100,000 matches
  • “proportionate” — 4,110,000 matches

This tells me that Web authors have favored “proportional” over “proportionate” by a ratio of 7.81-to-1, which is consistent with my initial reaction to hearing “proportionate” in the HGTV program.

Answer:
The two adjectives mean essentially the same thing, but “proportional” seems to be much more popular than “proportionate”.

“… applications that denigrate network capacity …”

Verbs

I saw this on a website.

Problem:
The verb “denigrate” is inappropriate here.

Explanation:
The complete paragraph, which appeared on a page about broadband Internet service from Cricket Wireless, was “Throughput may be limited if use exceeds 5GB per month. Internet browsing does not include: hosted computer applications, continuous web camera or broadcast, automatic data feeds, machine-to-machine connections, peer to peer (P2P) connections or other applications that denigrate network capacity or functionality.”.

In other words, the writer was referring to software applications that could adversely affect the capacity or functionality of the Cricket Wireless broadband Internet network.

The verb “denigrate” means to derogatorily criticize, to defame, or to blacken. The N-I-G-R part of this verb can be traced to the Latin verb “nigrare”, which means to make black.

So “denigrate” applies to people, not to telecommunications or computer networks.

“Degrade” would be an appropriate verb to describe the act of adversely affecting network capacity or functionality.

For fun, I searched Google for “denigrate network” (with the quotation marks, to avoid variations) and got about 194 matches.

What I found the most interesting about those search results was that Verizon Wireless also had a page that included “denigrate network capacity or functionality” in a discussion about its broadband Internet service.

That leads to one of three conclusions:

  1. Cricket copied Verizon.
  2. Verizon copied Cricket.
  3. Cricket and Verizon copied a third party when writing terms and conditions for wireless broadband Internet service.

No matter which of these three statements is true, their misuse of “denigrate” left a digital trail.

Solution:
“… applications that degrade network capacity …”