
English Has a New Preposition, Because Internet - sinak
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/11/english-has-a-new-preposition-because-internet/281601/
======
alex_c
What's fascinating to me is that, unlike so many other language "changes",
this isn't caused by laziness or carelessness. This seems to be a rare case
where removing words _adds_ information, rather than removing it: "The talks
failed because of politics" means roughly what it says, while "The talks
failed because politics" means roughly "The talks failed because of politics,
which is the kind of thing that always happens when politics are involved".

Any linguists care to comment whether there's a term for this kind of meaning
compression? "Idiom" doesn't quite seem to cover it.

~~~
lmkg
I think "idiom" is an apt description. It's a compact phrase that conveys at
least two layers of meaning. Most importantly, one of those meanings cannot
simply be parsed from the direct syntax & vocabulary that make up the phrase,
but relies on the cultural familiarity with the phrase and its common usage.

I do wonder, though, how long this secondary meaning will last. Right now the
dismissive connotation comes about because the phrase stands out, because it
breaks the rules in order to be overly brief. If the phrase gets used more,
and especially as a new generation never grows up not hearing it, it will not
stand out anymore as an unconventional. It could just become grammatical.
Without that element, it could easily lose its dismissive connotation.

This is kind of exciting to watch, in a nerdy sort of way. Language evolution
doesn't really happen much in literate societies like ours, so it's neat that
we have an example unfolding before our eyes.

~~~
Alex_Jiang
I'm not sure that understanding this is that predicated on cultural
familiarity. I'd argue the majority of its meaning comes from the fact that it
"breaks the rules in order to be overly brief." The syntax being intentionally
wrong, bad, and clumsy coincides with the fact that it's often used to
describe absurd things and situations. Clumsy syntax = slightly belligerent
rhetoric? I could be wrong, my main idea of a idiom is a proverb or figurative
parallel illustrating a concept.

~~~
dspeyer
I don't think it's belligerent or simply compressed. AFAICT, it warns the
listener that a lot is being left out. It is, in fact, the independent phrase
version, using a single noun as the independent phrase. This tells the
listener to deduce the rest of the phrase. The verb and object are generally
omitted for reasons other than brevity.

"I added bacon to my ice cream because bacon" [is the most awesome thing ever]
(and if you don't already know that or don't agree, I don't want to try
defending it).

"The project failed because politics" [generally causes everything to fail]
(and if I start talking about that I'll start ranting and no one wants that).

"Root beer in a square glass is beer because math" [uses "square" and "root"
as opposites] (but if I said that explicitly it would harm the humor of the
joke).

Contrast "I added bacon to my ice cream because of bacon", which would suggest
that everything you need to know is there and it is the nature of bacon to be
added to ice cream.

~~~
lkozma
Off-topic, but just wanted to add that the four comments above exemplify why I
still find hope in HN discussions. Each one adds some new insight, refining
what was said previously and does it in a constructive way.

------
humanrebar
Maybe it's just me, but the "prepositional because" is usually deprecative of
the subject. The article details the implications of the prepositional
because:

"It conveys focus... It conveys brevity... But it also conveys a certain
universality."

People use it when they're busy, drunk, or absent-minded to be self-
deprecative. As in:

"Maxed out my credit card because too much beer!"

But people also use it to disparage someone else:

"Uptown a*&%$# voted against prop B because racism."

The article briefly hints at this when it says, "So we get comments like
these, with people using 'because' not just to explain, but also to criticize,
and sensationalize, and ironize...".

In fact, I'm having a hard time coming up with an example of a "because X"
clause that has complimentary implications.

However, it's possible that the implications of this preposition has softened
recently and I'm out of the loop. Or maybe I'm just overthinking it.

EDIT: Maybe it's just me but "because bacon" and "because awesome" do not
imply that the subject of the sentence is a person with qualities worth
aspiring to. Not that bacon isn't awesome.

~~~
jrochkind1
> In fact, I'm having a hard time coming up with an example of a "because X"
> clause that has complimentary implications.

I added bacon to my milkshake because delicious.

I don't normally like superhero movies, but I went to see the Avengers,
because Joss Whedon.

~~~
humanrebar
This is close to being complimentary, but it comes across as more of a
compliment to Joss Whedon than the subject. At best, it's a neutral expression
of fandom. At worst, it's an admission of fanboy (or fangirl) proclivities.
Some sort of context is needed to clarify which one.

~~~
ep103
I like this

Because reasons

~~~
hobs
My favorite example of this one:
[http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnw17vhAgu1qhhhaco1_500.gi...](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnw17vhAgu1qhhhaco1_500.gif)

------
jrockway
I'm not yet convinced that this is something one can use and not get laughed
at for quite yet. It's fine for informal communications because your readers
are probably not too literate, but I fear that this might still confuse an
older generation used to more formal grammatical constructions.

All of the examples are just social media wanking, as far as I can tell, so
probably not indicative of any actual shift in how people are using English to
tell a story. "Skipping lunch because sleep." OK. Who the fuck cares?

Ultimately, the human brain can error-correct over gross misuse of language;
plenty of people speak without using articles, mess up "his" and "her" and
"he" or "she", spell the world "you" as "u", choose the wrong word when their
are homonyms, or wr173 411 7h31r s3n73n(3s l1|<3 7h15. That doesn't mean it's
a good idea to invoke the error correction machinery when the message isn't
actually corrupted; it would be pretty fatiguing to read Neal Stephenson in
l337 speak. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Because humans.

~~~
eru
> [..] an older generation used to more formal grammatical constructions.

They didn't start out as formal constructions, just pick up any lament about
the decline of language from, say, the 19th century.

~~~
masklinn
Or the third. Before common era too.

~~~
eru
Yes. But some 19th century laments are now accepted as formal usage.

------
dnautics
My suspicion is that this evolved from the phrase "because f-ck you, that's
why", which is pretty old (~5-10 years).

Edit: Oldest usage, as found by google:

[http://www.dkvine.com/games/dkl3/](http://www.dkvine.com/games/dkl3/) (2001),
line 807 in the source; this is probably not the first usage in all of
english.

~~~
__pThrow
Yes, and instead of claiming it to be "explicitly ironic" as the author does,
I had actually thought as I read it, it's mostly "implicitly fuck you."

~~~
dnautics
it's usually used in non-sequitur situations where a rational explanation for
an individual or entity in power is lacking. For example. "Q: why does the TSA
allow me to 20 miniature scope bottles but not one big scope bottle to get
past security? A: Because, f-you, that's why." It seems like in most of these
"because, X" constructs, there is an appeal to an agent that has a higher
authority or extremely potent, or surprising effect: Eg, "because, MATH" or,
"because, yay!", or "because, tiny subatomic particles!" but you probably
wouldn't use it for the mundane. "because, that's what I do every day" doesn't
_feel_ like the same cotstruct even though it has roughly the same form,
unless you put a strong emphasis on it, e.g. "because, THAT'S WHAT I DO EVERY
DAY". Which elevates the mundane to something omnipresent. Anyways, I'm not
sure what constitutes "explicitly ironic", but in the situations where
"because, fuck you" are called for seem pretty explicitly ironic to me.

~~~
__pThrow
> in the situations where "because, fuck you" are called for seem pretty
> explicitly ironic to me.

I'm not sure, about that.

I can hardly imagine a situation where "because SCIENCE" and "because MATH"
are ironic at all, except (and not implying you) to internet hipsters that
never understood science or math.

Why did it rain on my wedding day? Because IRONY! Why a black fly in my
chardonnay? Because IRONY! Why 10,000 straws when I needed a spork? Because
IRONY!

Sorry Alanis, still not ironic.

------
ozataman
Huh. This new form of "because" in an actual, intended-to-be-grammatically-
correct sentence sounds weird to me and I don't think I personally use it at
all. Isn't it just "because of" without the "of" when people are in a rush,
typing on a tiny keyboard or just plain lazy? Or when the intent is to
construct a witty, purposefully broken sentence?

~~~
nhebb
... fluffy, sensational article because _The Atlantic_.

~~~
tedunangst
You know they're hurting when The Atlantic is reporting on trends in Wonkette,
Daily Kos, and Jezebel. At least Slate, in their ridiculous "where's the
journalism now?" pieces, aims up at the NY Times.

------
apendleton
See also another relatively recent grammatical innovation in English, the
evolution of "slash" into a conjunction:

[http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2013/04/24/slash-
not...](http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2013/04/24/slash-not-just-a-
punctuation-mark-anymore/)

(Someone elsewhere in the thread said the "because" construction was unusual
because prepositions evolve more slowly than words of other parts of speech in
English; this is true, but conjunctions typically move slowest of all. Such
times we live in...)

~~~
bglazer
Ah that's really cool to see a relatively rare phenomenon like that happening
in real time. Also fascinating that the author used Facebook feeds as a
source. That seems like it could be a very, very powerful tool for
linguistics.

The privacy issues are obvious, but imagine being able to trace the spread of
new language construction as it propagates through a population.

------
c0achmcguirk
I first heard this construct in a Deep Thought by Jack Handey, from the mid-
nineties I believe:

"After I die, wherever my spirit goes, I'm going to try to get back and visit
my skeleton at least once a year, because, 'Hey, old buddy, how's it going?'."

I still laugh about it, and the main reason it was funny to me was the odd
(but humorously apropos) use of the word "because."

------
chc
It's not really a new preposition, per se. It's a type of joke. Every
occurrence cited here is using it in a jokey fashion. It seems to me you may
as well say potatoes are a common topic of conversation on the Internet
because of Latvian jokes.

~~~
rangibaby
This is how the word "OK" started out; it was a joke abbreviation of "all
correct": Oll Korrect. You never know when a joke is going to take over the
world...

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/OK-Improbable-Story-Americas-
Greatest/...](http://www.amazon.com/OK-Improbable-Story-Americas-
Greatest/dp/0199892539)

~~~
teddyh
That is _one_ possible origin of the word; its actual origin is unknown and
disputed.

------
axus
I thought this usage arose from dropping the word "of" after "because".
"Because of" wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article.

~~~
code_duck
It is, in the beginning:

> It can be followed either by a finite clause (I'm reading this because [I
> saw it on the web]) or by a prepositional phrase (I'm reading this because
> [of the web]).

Seems to me that you are correct, this 'new usage' is merely the latter usage
without 'of'.

~~~
Semaphor
The difference is that it changes the meaning.

~~~
code_duck
How exactly does it change the meaning? Either way it simply ascribes a cause.

------
ithkuil
We are educated to speak well our language (english, german, french, ....) and
most western languages require the speaker to be fully specific. The extent of
this varies from language to language, for example, in italian it's
grammatical and accepted to say "chi sono?" [who am?] while in english it's
not, despite the fact that the "am" means only first person singular. Similar
rules are governing the use of articles.

However, there are many languages in the world, especially in east Asia, which
take this even further and it's perfectly fine for you to omit large parts of
discourse. And it's not only because they are implied, but because the lack of
specification means something.

IANAL but I think here we are witnessing a similar a similar development.
Probably these things happen often in any language, but education tends to
punish "bad language" usage whenever it doesn't fit some established
grammatical rules. Split infinitives are another example of that.

------
adamnemecek
Can't wait for lolcat spelling to become alternative spelling.

------
cenhyperion
I've always used it in a dismissive sense. As if to say "it is the way it is,
let's not investigate further"

So "Why do you look so distraught?" "Because PHP" "I am so sorry."

------
erbo
There's other ways of expanding the "because-noun" construction. I've
occasionally posted a link to Facebook with a comment like "This is incredibly
awesome and you should read this, because SPACE." In this case, the construct
expands to something like "...because it has to do with space, which I
consider to be inherently awesome."

"Because-noun," it would appear, can be construed multiple ways, and a lot of
the meaning is contextual.

~~~
pferde
Or it could expand to something like "because it has to do with space, which I
find boring, but I remember that you're a space nut, therefore you might find
it interesting". Or even "because it will help with your school project which
is about space".

It's too fickle, too context dependent.

------
EGreg
I am not so sure internet idioms are of the same class as professionally
written English structure. Otherwise UrbanDictionary and RapGenius should
serve as the sources for today's written English.

These are two different genres. It's interesting to ask when something becomes
so widely accepted that it is considered fine to use in "proper" english
writing. If "because X" is, then so is LOL.

Incorporate ALL THE THINGS!

~~~
sparky_z
LOL was added to the OED a couple of years ago [1]. The point of this article
is that there have been enough sighting of "because [noun]" in the wild in
enough different contexts that it is starting to make that leap into the
mainstream, beyond just UrbanDuctionary and it's ilk.

[1]
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12893416](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12893416)

------
anakanemison
The grammatical class of prepositions changes considerably more slowly than
other classes.

We need new nouns and new verbs all the time, because what occupies and what
occurs in our environment changes so fast. Interestingly, despite that rapid
change, the set of prepositions, the set of conceptual relationships we've
chosen to concisely express, stays pretty steady.

It's fascinating to read about a new preposition entering into common usage,
because it makes me wonder what new pressures we're collectively facing in
describing conceptual relationships. Certainly it could just be Twitter's
character limits causing people to drop the "of" in "because of", but maybe
other forces caused this construction to have utility now.

My bet would be on an increased expectation that our conversational partners
share our context, and our models for understanding why things happen the way
they do, because internet.

------
powertower
That seems to dumb down the language, rather than improve or evolve it.

> Skipping lunch today because sleep.

What is that supposed to mean? You need to take a nap during lunch; you got
too much sleep the night before and are groggy, etc.

Why not add a few more words to make the sentence understandable (in this case
non-ambiguous).

~~~
HCIdivision17
It means sleep was the cause of lunch being missed. No more details are
provided or implied. Off the record, one could guess that the speaker didn't
want to remark on oversleeping due to the negative connotations, and is
instead leaving the answer vague in the hopes of don't-ask-don't-tell.
Depending on the audience, this may also be exactly enough information to be
unambiguous with the fewest number of words; a friend may have had prior
experiences that set the default interpretation and context of mid-day sleep.

TL;DR: Don't mistake dumb for compression.

~~~
powertower
How are you pulling original data out of a lossy compression method?

~~~
a-priori
Lossy compression always uses heuristics to guide compression and
decompression. In this case, the heuristic is 'my brain works similarly; why
would I have written this?'

------
rurounijones
I have always seen "Because noun" as being a dismissive "Don't think to hard
about it; that is just the way it is" reason. Or for a situation where there
is no rational explanation.

e.g.

A: "Why do some people have such a fetich for eating tiger penis"

B: "Because china"

Am I alone in this?

~~~
epochwolf
That's one use of it. Roughly equivalent to the "Aliens" guy meme.

The other meaning is "I don't need to explain why, because it should be
obvious". Example: Bacon milkshake, because bacon.

------
Mindless2112
On one hand, this doesn't bother me much because it's mostly just a mutation
of "because of" which I already avoid using. You can usually rework "because
of <noun>" into "because <phrase>" and produce a sentence that, in my
experience, better expresses what the speaker actually intends.

On the other hand, "because <noun>" is extremely inexact:

> English Has a New Preposition, Because Internet

What about the Internet caused English to gain a new preposition? Unless you
already understand, "because <noun>" adds little, if any, explanation. I can
see its use as a handy short-hand when your audience does already understand
though.

~~~
saraid216
Yes. It's an invocation, rather than an explanation. That's one of the
interesting things about it; it's effectively a reversal of the original
meaning of the word "because".

------
cafard
In 1914, W.B. Yeats published the book _Responsibilities_. The first poem,
"Pardon Old Fathers" included the lines "And you, silent and fierce old
man/Because the daily spectacle that stirred/My fancy...".

Anyway, that's the way it reads in the Collected Poems I bought long ago. To
be sure, if you Google for "Pardon Old Fathers", the versions you find will
say "Because of the spectacle". Is that on account of the Internet's (because
the Internet's) jealousy?

------
wubbfindel
Excellent article, worth the read.

Not many comments here, because short attention spans!

~~~
fosap
I'm not a native speaker. If i add a "of", ("because of short attention
spans!") that sounds if it was correct in the past aswell, so I'm confused.
For me that seems just leaving out the "of", or is there more?

~~~
thejteam
You're exactly right. This is just leaving out the "of". The article
interprets this to mean that the word "because" has become a new preposition
used in place of the proposition "of". Another interpretation is that
"because" retains its grammatical usage but a new sentence structure has
become acceptable. I personally interpret it the second way. Each domain has
its own grammatical structure.

------
dameyawn
I don't think preposition is correct. It's still being used as a subordinating
conjunction with the second clause being an implied complete sentence.

Take the current top comment example. "because politics" actually implies a
sentence something like "The talks failed because of politics, which is the
kind of thing that always happens when politics are involved."

It's a common rule-check for grammar to substitute these complete sentences in
order to understand the short-hand rule applications.

------
jheriko
i'm always torn about this sort of thing. its clearly a case of adopting
common and (previously?) incorrect usage because it has become popular - this
is characteristic of many differences between 'us' and 'uk' english.

i'm partly torn because it seems fruitless in this particular case. losing the
of is surely an optimisation, but i struggle to see the difference in intent.
despite the examples by others in comments and such they all work equally well
by using the 'correct' grammar including 'of'.

if this does take off i'm sure it will be recommended against heavily in style
guides. i recently opened up a copy of that 'famous' ap style book - the
defacto style guide for the us press - and was shocked to see how much of the
content about grammar and punctuation is stuff that my generation of brits
were taught as 'the rules' from quite an early age. again, i'm not really sure
if its good or bad...

on the one hand its not hard to just learn the rules and use them... on the
other its more convenient to be lazy. the advantage of the latter is ease of
use, but the advantage of the former is consistency and clarity. since we
write and speak for other people i am inclined to lean towards the former...
but when mistakes are common enough that argument is void and i'm inclined to
think the other way.

its certainly an interesting area to say the least... i just hope it never
gets so far that 'there' is accepted as an alternate spelling for 'their' or
'they're'. :)

------
fallingOff
_I added bacon to my milkshake because delicious /awesome._

In the sentence above, "because" is followed by an adjective phrase.
Prepositions are never followed by adjective phrases, so "prepositional
because" is a misnomer for this new construction and does not fully describe
its range of uses. I have no suggestions for a better name though...

I've never heard this construction in speech, but maybe I don't hang out with
enough nerdy internet types.

~~~
kzrdude
I think you need to say it like this to really be in spirit:

> I added bacon to my milkshake because bacon.

~~~
kzrdude
oi this is disturbing. "because bacon" already had tons of uses in the comment
thread already. I didn't see that!

------
mtdewcmu
You still run a risk of sounding like an idiot if you use this construction.
Personally, I would wait a few more years before adopting it in all
situations.

------
mindcrime
Language is weird. See:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sentences)

Because Wikipedia.

------
vezzy-fnord
Interesting how language can evolve (devolve?) in the face of character limits
for online comments. A very memetic fashion, as well.

------
marincounty
Being brief is great. I have always felt most people are overly wordy--
especially in the technicial fields(600 page programming books go right in my
recycling bin), but what I find irratitating is peope who use the constraints
of the internet to be cute--too tired to exemplify, but Hip Chicks seem to
gravitate towards this way communicating.

------
triplenineteen
This seems somewhat related to "not sure if serious" or the general form "not
sure if [adjective]".

------
spicerguy
The xkcd comic referenced in
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6768540](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6768540)
helped me to realise that there is a counter proposition to "because" \- "but"
\- "but minecraft!"

------
lutusp
"I rationalize endlessly, because _because_."

------
axilmar
In Greek, there exists the exact same construct from ancient times: "ΛΟΓΩ
FOO", i.e. "BECAUSE OF foo".

It's fascinating how languages converge.

------
return0
It's just "because of" ironically replaced with "because ..." , with the
ellipsis omitted

------
ollymorgs
Maybe we should consult the Queen before attempting to ruin her language?

------
sjclemmy
I don't think the article mentions it, Because? Question mark.

------
bestest
I hate theatlantic.com for their sliding down ad at the top.

------
Aardwolf
In Dutch this one already exists: "vanwege".

~~~
Cthulhu_
Which is actually a merger of two words (van wege), which roughly translates
to 'because of'. Lots of words are pronounced as if they are one (or always
together), and in this case they were eventually written as one.

------
l0gicpath
I'm here, commenting on this because -HN-Timesink

~~~
ionforce
That doesn't seem like a particularly strong example, especially considering
the phrase you chose isn't concise. "H N Time Sink".

"I forgot to feed my kids because Warcraft."

"My server melted because Slashdot."

As for Hacker News being a time sink in your life, I don't know that there's a
phrase short enough to fit.

"I sunk all my time into innernet forums because single."

------
djKianoosh
I guess it all depends on the meaning of of?

------
contextual
My favorite word that's picked up a new meaning (for me, anyway) is trespass,
as in "trespassers will be trespassed"[1].

Apparently, using the word trespass as a intransitive verb is correct (albeit
archaic) and was used as such in the New Testament, as in _forgive those who
trespass against us_.

[1][http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/trespassers-
wil...](http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/trespassers-will-be-
trespassed/)

------
ChristianMarks
This is trending on HN because Hacker News.

------
jimzvz
It makes my skin crawl when I see it. I really hope this "because _noun_ "
thing doesn't become anything more than the irritating form of humour that it
started out as. It is almost as irritating as "on accident".

