Rules that aren't really rules

Quick, tell me how many of you have struggled to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition? And by the same token how many have struggled to avoid using a conjunction to start a sentence.
Well, I am afraid, dear reader, you were dupped. Neither of these rules are really rules at all. In fact, they both stem from the Latin language. However, English derives more from Germanic languages than it does Romantic languges, so that's where we run into a problem. Let me guide you through why both are perfectly acceptable.

Ending sentences with prepositions

I once heard a joke about how two parties got along that goes something like this:
A couple from Georgia and a couple from the Northeast were seated side by side on an airplane.
The girl from Georgia, being friendly and all, said, “So, where y’all from?”
The Northeast girl said, “From a place where they know better than to use a preposition at the end of a sentence.”
The girl from Georgia sat quietly for a few moments and then replied: “So, where y’all from, bitch?” The original joke can be found here.
The idea is that ending a sentence with a preposition is somehow below the intellectual class, but I would argue it's only below people who fancy themselves to be the intellectual class.
See, in this case, the "where you all from?" isn't really a preposition. The "from" isn't actually a preposition, but a modifier to the verb "where".
Technically, such constructions are called adverbial particles, and the English language is on speaking terms with the construction. The Latin language called for all prepositions to fall before the noun, but like I said English plays more nicely with the German language than it ever did with Latin.
So next time someone tries to critique your use of a preposition at the end of the sentence, just ask them if they know what an adverbial particle is, and watch as that smug look falls from their face.

Starting sentences with a conjunction

We all know what conjunctions are thanks to time spent watching School House Rock (and if you haven't, you can just leave right now), but too many of us fear using one to start a sentence thanks to time under overzealous high school English teachers (by the way, if you still haven't left and still haven't seen the School House Rock video here it is).
Anyway, I am here to tell you that starting sentences with conjunctions is okay. No really, it's fine. I am not a high school teacher, so there's that to ease your fear.
I talked with my old high school teachers who forbade such activities, and they said they did so to keep students from creating sentence fragments because conjunctions can introduce independent or dependent clauses. The problem, though, is most younger students don't know the difference between the two, and so allowing a high school student to start a sentence with a conjunction may likely lead to a sentence fragment.
I figure most of use are beyond that point, so, really, there's no need to fear starting a sentence with an "and, but, or or" anymore.(In case you aren't beyond that point, here's a quick rundown of sentence fragments by my favorite English source, Purdue.)
Doing so actually creates extra emphasis that's required for such practices as persuasive speaking or writing.
So, in the hopes of casting off old chains, I suggest you go out and try writing a sentence with a conjunction as the first word. You'll feel better for doing so.

Minor differences: Use vs. Utilize

In the course of the past few weeks, I have considered changing the tone of this blog a very little bit. I understand I seem more than a little bit snobby, so in an effort to avoid alienating you dear readers, I am going to attempt to ease up on the elitism.
However, still expect engaging discussions about grammar and its nuances. Without further ado, let’s tackle a question that’s been on my mind for a while: use vs. utilize.

Definitions (According to Merriam-Webster)
Utilize: to make use: turn to practical use or account
Use: the act or practice of employing something

Of course, most writing guides advise people to avoid the use of “utilize.” A three-syllable word vs. a one-syllable word doesn’t seem to require a lot consideration. Shorter is generally better, but “use” doesn’t sound better, or at least to the untrained ear that is.

The reception of the trained ear

When I hear the word "utilize" I think someone is trying to say “use,” but that person may be unaware of the connotations of the word.
See professionals in the writing field find “utilize” pretentious in all the wrong ways. It commonly functions in the same way as “use” but it requires more letters and sounds to make.
”Utilize”, and the people who use it without cause, tries hard to sound smarter than it actually it is. It seems like a normal man donning glass he doesn’t need to appear smarter than he actually is.
The question then is, why use glasses if you don’t need them? Why use “utilize” when you can use “use”?

The problem with deception

I enjoy a good deception as much as the next person. I mean if such a deception wins a person the affection of other people, why not use a crafty deception? If that cute girl in the coffee shop loves men with glasses, why not wear the unneeded glasses?
And if a job asks for an established writer, why not use a word that seems to be in the vocabulary of a professional writer?
The problem, as I described earlier, is that the deception is severely limited in its deception as most trained writers scoff at the use of the word.

The correct use of "Utilize"

One, at this point, might question the need of “utilize” at all then. It’s more cumbersome than “use” and it means the same thing, so why bother? Actually, “utilize” has an established meaning.
According to the Oxford dictionary, Scientists use it to mean to “make practical and effective use of something”, so your body utilizes Vitamin C to take advantage of iron in your system (Thanks to the Oxford dictionary for the sample too).
So there’s a time and place for everything.

Solutions to avoid overuse

If you’re a scientist, use it: Do you have a degree in some form of science? Are you writing a scientific paper? Go ahead and use “utilize.” Otherwise, chop it out of your language.

Say it out loud every time you write “utilize”: Your annoyance at saying the word out loud will drive you to drop the word from your vocabulary eventually. In doing so, you put yourself in the position of the reader, and that’s something all writers need to do.

Again, that’s it. Hang with me as I struggle with perfecting this new format. I may go back to the old elitist format next week depending on this one’s reception.

Why I hate, forbid and avoid use of the oxford comma

I am about to take a very unpopular stance today, namely, the fact that I don’t believe in the oxford comma.

But how? I thought you were one of the good people.

I used to be like most of you. I though the comma was need to keep list items from comingling with one another.
For example, the sentence “highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector,” could use a serial comma after 800-year-old demigod to make it clear Nelson Mandela isn’t a dildo collector.

See, it works! You’re crazy not to use it.

You’re right. I think based on the current structure of the sentence; a comma is needed, but therein lies the problem of the oxford comma. Too often it’s used as a crutch for writers incapable of clarifying context without the use of the comma.
For example, the above sentence could also be rewritten as such,

“The global tour includes highlights such a lengthy conversation with Nelson Mandela in Africa, an encounter with an 800-year-old demigod in Europe and a not-all awkward conversation with a dildo collector in America.”

Wait, I wasn’t confused at all this time. What changed?

Now that’s a pretty sentence that not only provides more information about the subject at hand, but also doesn’t require an oxford comma.
Why you ask?
Because each of the subjects are distinct enough to stand on their own, which means one less comma, and one less comma is always a good thing.

But distinct subjects should be made distinct, shouldn’t they?

Let me be clear. I have no problem with the oxford comma in its original context. I understand the need to differentiate list items from one another.
However, I feel if the list items can be confused with one another the writer should either reorganize the list or clarify it instead of asking the reader to recognize yet another verbal cue on the page. As usual, I have prepared what I hope are good solutions to the problem.

Force everyone to spend time working as journalists: Editors should know AP style, and AP style bans the use of the oxford comma. The continual hate, degradation and humiliation that comes from screwing up grammar for a newspaper editor would quickly remedy the use of the oxford comma.

Charge for comma use: In this manner, important commas would be kept out of necessity, but superfluous ones, such as the oxford comma, would be struck from the writing tool box of most writers. This idea comes from the day of the printing press. Any extra element required more ink, so naturally the oxford comma fell out of use, or it did for the poorer folks.

Get rid of lists all together: This concept would force people to change the manner in which they think. Concepts could only ever be thought of one at time. The idea that some concept would have multiple components would be impossible. Also the world of lists might explode, which may or may not affect the physical world.

Ignore the use of the oxford comma, move on: I think this time, this option of just giving up would probably be the easiest and simplest to implement. And of course, I never said anything about no longer being self-righteous toward users of the oxford comma.

So that’s it
Yup. Again, I have no definite answers, just hopes for a brighter, clearer and better future for grammar. And always, here's a quick look at what someone funnier than I has to say on the subject of oxford commas. Travel on.

The very essence of very

Very. It’s a word favored by all to add spiciness to otherwise boring statements. For example, consider the following:
The rhino was angry.
Why do I care if a rhino is angry? By their nature, such animals are angry, so why would I care if he was angry. However, add “very,” and I have a reason to care.
“The rhino is very angry.”
I know now that the rhino is abnormally angry. And I am also worried what might have been done to incite the rage of the one horned killer. So, “very” is a good word, but it was used until overuse drove the meaning of the word insane.
But before we go further, we should probably know what the word means. “Very” has the distinction of being one of those words that no one ever really defines because its meaning is so universal. It’s commonly used to mean “more.”
Etymology of the word suggests the word began as verray which roughly meant “true, genuine,” and later came to mean “actual, shear,” which would suggest the “more” definition. A full background of the word can be found at the online etymology dictionary.
Nowadays, Merriam Webster states "very" is “actual” or “real.” The fourth definition allows the word to be used as an intensive as it’s more commonly used today. However, this shift worked “very” into an identity crisis.
Every Jack, Jill, and other J-named folks used the word for everything. Suddenly, finding a penny on the ground was no longer just cool, but it had to be “very cool.” Paper cuts went from horrible to “very horrible.”
Of course, this pattern meant the concepts once described as “very X” required “very very X” to convey the same meaning. Suddenly, a very angry rhino was considered just a normal angry rhino, but a very very angry rhino was just very angry, which proved difficult for those zoo keepers dealing with angry rhinos.
When one person said “very angry” did they mean “angry” or actually “very angry?”
Many people died. If it weren’t so sad, it might be funny, but it’s not. This is serious. Very serious one might say.
The question remains though how do we correct the overuse of the word without destroying the very meaning of the word altogether? As always, I have prepared some solutions.
Make the word cost money: I understand the word is needed sometimes, so every can get one “very” a day, more than it costs 25 cents, then 50 cents, 1 dollar, and so. It’s called exponential growth. Google it. Anyway, the idea is the cost would force people to conserve “very” and would only use it when absolutely necessary. Of course, they might get away with other modifiers just like I did in that last sentence, so more extreme measures may be required.
One-up anyone who uses the word: If someone says something is very cool, do better. Say it’s very, very cool. The sheer repetition of the word is sure to drive some folks mad, and if you’re especially vindictive you can two-up people. That paper cut isn’t very horrible, it’s very very very horrible. People will either get tired of your ceaseless one-up manship and stopping using the word, or they might think you’re stupid, your call.
Disown friends, family, anyone who uses the word: The idea is simple in its application, but extreme in its measures. I suggest you first warn your loved ones you may disown them for using the modifier, but hey that’s your call.
Ignore the word when it’s misused and simply avoid misusing it yourself: Right, like you, hypothetical person reading a blog about grammar is really capable of doing such thing.
Again, I have no answers or solutions. Just be careful with “very.” Extra careful, you might even say… No, don’t make me say it again.

Midweek Review: Still Raining

For the last eight weeks, I have been paying more attention to my grammar than ever before thanks to my new job as a newspaper editor, an editing class, and, of course, this blog.
Of course, being more aware of my grammar also means that I have become more aware of other people’s grammar at the same time, specifically other people’s grammatical errors. Most of the time, this ability is welcome.

I work in a place that reveres grammar above all else. For every mistake I correct, my employees usually thank me for catching their error. I have, over the course of the last weeks, found this pattern to be false with any other than the people I work with. What follows are the excerpts from my attempts to correct the grammar of others.

Random person waiting in line at the Frontier:
“So me and Mack went to the store,” the guy in front of me said. I told him kindly he meant “Mack and I,” and then he asked me how I knew Mack. I told him I didn’t know Mack, but that he used the wrong pronoun. He looked at me blankly, and turned away.

Fellow classmate in design class:
“Over 30,000 fans!” the poster for a rock show said. I asked what the fans were over. And why did they need so many fans. I said I only had one fan in my house and I got along just fine. Did she mean more than 30,000 fans? My classmate also started at me blankly before telling me that we probably shouldn’t talk to each other anymore.

My little brother’s science fair project:
“Which plane flies the furthest?” his board said. In the interest of teaching him good habits early, I told my younger brother, he’s nine, that he meant to use farther. I told him “farther” is especially for distances and “further” is for everything else. He was grateful, but my mother came in shouting at me. “You don’t correct a nine year’s old grammar! What’s wrong with you?”

My girlfriend via text message:
“You think I am a unique dancer?” she asked. I had to say no because I know that unique means. That it means a sole example. It means only one, and my girlfriend isn’t the only dancer in her style. She has defining traits, but she’s not unique according to the traditional sense of the word. Or at least that’s what I told her. She told me she wasn’t talking to me for a while as that was the best way to avoid grammatical mistakes.

So in short, I figure there’s a time for grammatical excellence, namely when someone pays or asks for your expertise. Otherwise, it may be best to keep your mouth shut and allow others to destroy the conventions of language. And if you can’t do that, just prepare for the consequences.

Pronouns Pt. 1: Teams are its

Quick, which is right?

The organization’s funding ran out. They need more money.
The organization’s funding ran out. It needs more money.

Aww, pronouns. Aren’t they lovely? They save space and time, yet as it the case with all grammatical rules people will find a way to misuse them.
In the above example, the second option is most correct despite what common sense might otherwise dictate. Yes, an organization is made up of different people, which might suggest the use of “they,” but really, the correct pronoun is the singular “it.”
Why? The organization is acting as whole. It’s a singular object composed of many smaller objects, thus the “it.” Simple stuff, right?
Wrong.
My writers, and copyeditors, at my newspaper fail to catch this error all the time. I don’t know what their problem is, but they can’t seem to understand a team, organization, company, or group is a singular object.
I am ready to give up quite honestly. I figure if the writer wants a team to be a “they” then fine. The team can be a “they” because honestly what difference does it make?
It would be simpler if a group was represented with a group pronoun. However, this concept would only work though if there was only one group in question, otherwise everything stops making sense.
For example, this sentence, “The Association of Angry Aardvarks ate all the ants. They enjoyed the feast,” it isn’t clear who enjoyed the eating.
Did the ants enjoy being eaten? Or did the Association enjoy eating the ants? A quick tweak fixes the situation, “The Association of Angry Aardvarks ate all the ants. It enjoyed the feast.”
With the established rules, I know for a fact that the “it” refers to the organization and not the ants. See grammar saves the day again.
The question, then, is how to get people to understand this simple rule. As usual, I have got a few suggestions.

Offer the correct pronoun, and explain why it’s the correct pronoun, every time: The first time you explain to a person why a team is an it, and not a “they,” the offending person might even be grateful. The second time, not so much. The third, not at all. And by the fourth, he or she will stop for good.

Ask for clarification about the correct pronoun, every time: This solution follows a dialogue format along these lines every time he or she mentions a team, and then calls said team a “they,” you say something like, “Wait, where did the “they” come from? Was there an element of this conversation I missed? My god, please tell me, please.” Cry when you do this. It should fix the error.

Call the pronoun police: Their methods are cruel. Their practices illegal in the greater continental USA, but their success rate is near 95 percent. Do note they cost around 100,000 per corrected pronoun.

Move on with life without letting let things such as improper pronoun use affect you: Yeah, like that’s going to happen, am I right?

Again, I don’t have the answers, just hopes for a brighter grammatical future.

Literally, and what it “literally” means

I overheard this while eating in a restaurant last night.
“I am so hungry, I could literally eat all the food in the whole restaurant.”
It’s hyperbole and I generally have no problem with it conversation.
Talking with other human beings can be a boring practice and spicing it up is necessary through metaphor and hyperbole, but I draw the line at literally.
As an English major, I use the word all the time to distinguish between metaphorical interpretations of passages and literal interpretations of passages.
For example, for this sentence, “Jane walked with her friend Maria into the canyon,” literally means she walked into a canyon with her friend Maria. That’s the simple meaning of that definition.
Or as Merriam Webster likes to define it, Literally is “in a literal sense or manner : ACTUALLY ”
A metaphorical, and ridiculous, meaning could be something along the lines of “Jane and Maria explored their sexuality” because metaphorical canyons represent vaginal symbols or some ridiculous bullshit.
See, the literal tag allows writers and interpreters to allow them to them to cut through the metaphorical swatches of meaning with the word, “literal.”
The word has a concrete and unbreakable connotation. Something is what it is, and there are no exceptions about it. It’s like the top from Inception that supposed to fall over when the narrator is in reality but keeps spinning when he’s dreaming.
“Literally” is that totem. Not literally, but in a metaphorical sense, you know?
However, the misuse of this word is taking away its concrete meaning, and throwing the rest of the world into a horrible surreal reality where everything is literal and nothing is metaphorical. This is just as frustrating as it is in the movie when one can’t tell if the top falls or not. And just as anticlimactic.
When that women said, she could literally eat all the food in the restaurant. I was scared. I hid my food. I didn’t want her to eat my food as well.
Whenever someone says they literally could kill someone, I run in fear. Literal or not, I don’t want to be part of a murder investigation.
And I am even more cautious when someone says, they literally drank a gallon of vodka. I always call the cops, but I am usually made into a fool because I believed the literal sense of what a drunk person was telling me.
My reality is unreal because of the bastardization of this word. I have taken the pains of proposing possible solutions.
Treat the word and what follows it as concrete truth: In this manner, maybe people will stop using it. I know I would the first time I said something like, “I literally don’t need my pinky toe,” and then had my pinky toe taken away from me.
Treat the word and what follows it as metaphorical: This manner will also encourage the use of the word to die down. For example, if someone said, “I am literally dying for water,” and they were in fact dying, and I told them to quit exaggerating, and they died, I am sure no one would ever use the word literally around me again for fear of not being taken seriously.
Ignore anything that’s said if it contains the word: This applies better to the previous example. “ I am still literally dying of thirst.” Oh yeah? I am still literally not listening to you until you change your diction choice.
Stop overreacting to a seemingly innocent word choice: This manner would require English majors to let things go, which seems like a great idea. However, it’s not possible and will not be considered.
Again, I don’t have the solution.
Until a solution is reached, I will continue to overreact, for safety of course, anytime literally comes up.

A confession: exclamation marks

A confession:

I have an confession to make.
I sometimes use an exclamation mark to denote an intense feeling or an imperative command.
I know, I thought I was better than that too, but I have failed you dear readers.

The beginning:

Like the rest of us, I was introduced to the exclamation point in elementary school. Like all young children, I was enticed by the power it offered to me.
Normal sentences became something... more. Where my writing lacked pop, teachers and friends marveled at my mastery of the exclamation point. Everything I wrote was imbued with more emotion from one of the simplest strokes to learn in penmanship. I was unstoppable.

The simplicity:

It still marvels me with its simplistic beauty. A single straight line, sometimes wider near the top depending on the font, could change everything about a period.
The exclamation lacked the pretense of a question mark. It wasn't difficult to write, and it could be applied to any situation. A love note to girl in the hallway. An assignment about thankfulness for my family. It was even on some fancy graphing calculators.

The friendship:

Yes, the exclamation mark and I became fast friends, and we blazed trails across the frontiers of my developing grammatical skills in elementary school.
However, as Americans realized their manifest destiny was over at the sight of the endless ocean, so was mine upon discovering the sea of grammar in high school and college.

The chains of style:

I began, reluctantly, to learn the rules of style. Red pens tore into my papers and ego, and my once powerful writing was washed away in a sea of crimson ink.
One of the things washed away were the exclamation marks. They were declared tacky and a crutch of a weak writer, so I gave them up, but I did much more than that.
I turned once was love into hate for something I was no longer allowed to have. Anyone who used an exclamation mark was a simpleton, a failed writer, or generally lacking the excellent taste I had developed.

The regret:

But I knew, somewhere deep, that I wished I could bring the exclamation point back.
But I didn't. It was too far gone. When I realized my wrong, it had been high jacked by preteens and the illiterate on facebook. They threw it around like it was a common whore instead of the fancy lady it deserves to be treated like.
I was shocked. I realized I had treated it the same way when I was younger. It's a powerful tool, but only when used in the hands of the powerful.
And when should it be used you ask?
The suggestions:

Well , this site has some pretty good ideas of when, but I would like to offer an even simpler suggestions:

Allow exclamation points if you're willing to give up a lock of hair: I love this idea. It would cut down on the long hair of hippes everywhere while ushering a new gold age of appropriate exclamation use. Moreover, it would provide the sparring use required to make the exclamation point useful.

Put people in the stocks if they use exclamation points too much: Nothing reinforces positive behavior like getting hit with rotten vegetables and fruit, at least in my experience.

Do nothing: We allow the English language to be overrun by the abundance of unnecessary and overdone grammatical punctuation marks. When all has been destroyed, we can rebuild the language from scratch.

Stop listening to and/or reading sentences that have inappropriate exclamation points and/ or more than one: This idea I like the best. It's simple and easy to implement. It also allows us to avoid listening to half of the population.

A final note:

Again, I can't say what idea is right, but I do hope something can be done to save the exclamation point. It's done nothing wrong and no longer deserves such suffering at the hands of angry teenagers and poor fiction writers.
Take the time to use an exclamation mark correctly in your life. It can make all the difference for an oft abused punctuation mark.

"Chris' third blog post" or "Chris's third blog post"

Let's talk apostrophes, shall we? And I don't mean, the apostrophes for contractions or possessive ownership. No, I want to talk about the tricky little bastard of a rule for apostrophes when a noun ends with a "S."
See I have lived this plight. My name, or the one I choose to go by, is Chris, which means anytime I want to say something belongs to me, I have to make a huge decision.
Do I add an apostrophe "S" to my name that ends with "S" , "Chris's writing never ceased to horrify young children," like this?
Or do I drop it all together, "Chris' writing never ceased to horrify infants," like this?

The question haunts me.

See, I know that if the word is monosyllabic you add another "S" in the interest of helping the reader pronounce the word correctly.
You can't just say "Chris writing." You have to say, "Chris iz writing." It says so at the BBC. And if you can trust the BBC, then who the hell can you trust about the proper use of English?
However, the majority of the world didn't waste four years of its life studying grammar in college, so I do add the "S" I am always meet with indignation.
They say, "Don't you know, you don't need an apostrophe if the word ends in S. I thought you were an English major. Probably, not a good one."
And sigh. I give up. This fight is one I know I can win, but not without making self into a total asshole, so I let it slide and let the other person have victory even though I know I am right.
I keep tally. It's happened 27 times.
27.

Possible Solutions

• Let this battle go. No one knows the rule anyway, and it's only a matter of time before it becomes as obscure as the oxford comma. Too many people have died for the cause already. It's time to end the bloodshed. (Note: I might have made the last part up for dramatic emphasis.)
• Force everyone to study grammar for four years. And not just this dangling modifier or misplaced participle business. We need to get back to basics, which means going back to Old and Middle English. No one will be allowed to leave the grammar camps until they can recite Beowulf and The Canterbury Tales from memory.
• Stop caring about apostrophes. No one else does, so why should we? We would save ourselves a lot of time and effort from typing that extra symbol. In fact, we can get rid of all superscript elements, so say goodbye to quotation marks as well. Periods and commas had better watch their backs though. They might be next.
• Inform people in a kind way when they misuse grammar if the scenario calls for it. This is the boldest of my ideas, and I think the riskiest. Lovers of grammar would have to let things slide now and then. You wouldn't correct someone every time they said something like, "Me and him are going to the movies." This means we wouldn't have to worry so much about apostrophes, but could still point out when people use them wrong in a formal paper or when the error results in confusion.

The Reality
Alas, I think most of us would probably die if we couldn't correct others. The world would be thrown into chaos with apostrophes to mark whose stuff belongs to who. Lawmakers would never approve the grammar camps us English majors dream of.
It looks like time will have its way with the extra "S," and we will have to mourn the rule alongside the oxford comma.

Minor differences: More than and over

Which is correct?
The death rate was more than 90 percent?
or
The death rate was over 90 percent?
Now, I know, in the interest of brevity many might be inclined to use "over" in place of "more than," but I would argue that's American laziness at its finest.
If we take some time to analyze the words, one can see my point.
"Over" defined by Merriam Webster means , "used as a function word to indicate motion or situation in a position higher than or above another " or also, "a : across a barrier or intervening space; especially : across the goal line in football."
In short, "over" is most often used for spatial reasons, primarily to be above something, so it makes sense that it soon was used to mean "above" for abstract concepts.
"Over" is often used when dealing with numbers, particularly with percentages or groups of people. Recently, I saw the Sony website state, "It had over 9 million customers..." which is an acceptable use of the word, but I feel the word over ought to be restricted to spatial terms so as to avoid confusion.
The English language is already confusing and the multiple meanings of our varied words certainly don't make it any easier to understand. Prepositions in particular should be simple because they deal directly with the physical world. To get them mixed up with the abstract world seems reckless and asking for trouble.
For example consider the sentence, " I drove over you." Taken literally it means I drove my car over you, dear reader. I assure I would never do such a thing, unless you made me angry and said something as silly as "irregardless" but I digress.
The point is the use of over is unclear in this scenario because "over" deals with spatial concepts. Thus, "I drove over you," means I literally drove a vehicle over you, and probably killed you in the process.
I probably meant to say, "I drove more than you," which doesn't mean I committed vehicular manslaughter, but instead suggests I drove a farther distance than you. (Note: more on farther and further in the weeks to come.)
For this reason alone, I suggest we use "over" in its position as a preposition and stop trying to use it to represent abstract concepts. Bad things happen when you mix incompatible concepts such matter and anti-matter, peanut butter and beets, and Lana Del Rey and singing. Need I say more?
For sanity's sake, please be careful when using prepositions for abstract concepts.

Minor differences: Since and Because

As I mentioned before, I work at a newspaper, which means I spend a lot of my time correcting grammatical mistakes.
This means I am attentive to things others call anal. Case in point, the difference between "since" and "because."
In common use, the two words mean the same thing, but to someone who works with words daily as I do, they couldn't be more different.
"Since" deals with temporal events such as "Since I was seven years old, I liked to run." And "because" deals with cause and effect such as, "Because I run, I am skinny."
I am not sure where the difference comes from, but I do know it matters, and when people say something like, "Since I am tired, I won't go out tonight."
When applied with the correct meaning, this phrase doesn't make any sense. It implies a weird temporal relation that doesn't make sense.
Granted, I know what the person saying this statement means, but what I struggle with the question of correcting the offending error or letting it slide.
In the end, the grammar doesn't matter to the normal individual. The addition of the knowledge doesn't make his or her life any better, and it only gives me a sense of satisfaction.
Of course, it's hard to resist such a satisfaction. It's good to be right especially when you have a dictionary to back you up. However, if I am going to correct someone I would like the see behavior change for good, and correcting grammar for the sake of correcting grammar doesn't mean a whole lot to the average person. In fact, the exchange usually goes something:
"Since I was tired, I decided to stay inside."
"Actually, it's 'because'."
"What?"
"Not since, because is the right word."
"Oh okay... like I was saying Since i was tired..."
I never try to correct someone twice. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
I don't think I am insane yet.
And it's nice to work in an environment where people get to paid to listen to my corrections, but I suppose grammar mistakes will always shine on my rain parade.

In the beginning

My name is Chris Quintana, and I write because I am not very good at anything else.
Most of the things I am good at come from the result of not being very good at anything else.
I started running because I was too clumsy to play other sports, and I had to compete in something. When I was child, my parents stopped keeping track when we would play games such as mini golf or bowling because if I lost I would sulk for weeks after.
So I ran because I wasn't good at anything else, and somehow I became good at running.
I went to college because I wasn't good at listening to the bosses I had in the few jobs I managed to get during high school. I was usually fired within a month, so I knew I needed to do something other than menial labor because I wasn't good at it.
I deal almost exclusively with life in a sarcastic or comedic angle because I am not good at containing my emotions otherwise. I would cry at the end of every romantic comedy, Love, Actually included, if I didn't make fun of it the whole way through.
And finally, I write because I am not good at keeping my opinions or thoughts to myself. Whereas others can create beautiful, private universes within their brains, I have to share my viewpoints with others.
Moreover, I have to know what other people are thinking because of my inability to leave people alone. This fact is also why I am journalist.
Finally, everything I just wrote is sometimes true and sometimes not true because I am not good at keeping my personas separated. Have a great day, and don't you dare shine on my rain parade.