Devolution toward Simpler

“Childrens Protective Service”

Adjectives, Apostrophes, Devolution toward Simpler, Misspellings, Possessives

I saw this yesterday in an email message.

Problem:
An apostrophe is missing.

Explanations:
The email message was talking about social-work efforts, and “Childrens Protective Service” — with “Childrens” spelled C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N — was the title of one of the sections in the message.

I believe that the absence of a required possessive apostrophe in “Childrens” can be attributable to:

  • A typographical error;
  • Ignorance about possessive apostrophes.

Given how often I see the apostrophe-free “Mens” and “Womens” in department stores, I doubt that “A typographical error” applies to this situation.

That leaves us with “Ignorance about possessive apostrophes”.

I believe that this ignorance is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis.

It is simpler to write possessive words without apostrophes than to write them with apostrophes.

Solution:
“Children’s Protective Service”

“Ten items or less”

Adjectives, Common English Blunders, Devolution toward Simpler

I was reminded of this common English blunder while reviewing a course for employees.

Problem:
The word “less” is inappropriate here.

Explanation:
“Less failed orders due to increased system checks” was given as a benefit of a software application used by sales agents handling inbound orders from customers.

This reminded me of the common English blunder “Ten items or less” that is often seen in checkout lines at grocery stores and other retailers.

The primary definition of the adjective “less” is to a smaller degree or extent In contrast, the adjective “fewer” means of a smaller number.

So, the adjective “less” is incorrect in “Less failed orders” and in “Ten items or less”.

For fun, I searched Google for each of the following (with the quotation marks, to avoid variations) and got about the indicated numbers of matches:

  • “items or fewer” — 41,600 matches
  • “items or less” — 2,450,000 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the incorrect “items or less” versus the correct “items or fewer” by a ratio of 58.9-to-1, which is absolutely dreadful.

I believe that the preference for “less” over “fewer” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to say or write the four-letter, one-syllable “less” than it is to say or write the five-letter, two-syllable “fewer”.

Some stores still get it right, fortunately.

Solution:
“Ten items or fewer”

“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.