game, Right?” Wrong. (And that’s not just because ["d been using the word grammar ll ry life ‘whien I should have been saying usage.) The deeper I got into my editing studies, the more I realized that every native English speaker's language chotees are linguistically valid. Even if those choices don't conform exactly to the Chicago Manual of Style. Don’t get me wrong—! love Chicago. {regard it my editing bible, Infact, I've spent ‘so much time with my nose in that book that I'm surprised my nose hasn’t been permanently ink- ‘stained with the imprints of Chicago references, Nonetheless, I ecognize that although following (Chicago's rules is often useful, breaking those rules is sometimes just as useful. Chicago even ‘admits it, right in the preface: "None of our recommendations are meant to foreclose breaking or bending rules to fit a particular case, something we continue todo ourselves.” This is coming ‘rom what is considered by many to be the very symbol of prseriptivism, And ifa style guide ‘can adit that sometimes language “rales” are meant to be broken, then we are coming closer to finding n balance between the two extremes of language views, At one extreme isthe “grammar police." This group consists of highbrow prescrptivists ‘who would rather chop off an em than leave a preposition dangling atthe end ofa sentence. I find this atitude dangerous, not only out of concern forthe severed arms but because too often, person who views “bad gramma asa capital crime also views the author asthe enemy. These preseriptivsts lie in wait for some poor, hopeful writer to offer up her manvseript and then proceed to gut the author's baby with « butcher knife—or, more accurately, a red pen. Their response tothe writer's subsequent tears? “I know beter than you do.” Pethaps they do know better. But often, the people who think this way are woefully uninformed about cutent usage. For example in my usage class, my professor assigned us each to research a usage debate and report our findings tothe class I had reason is because. When I went into my research, 1 z{didn’t even know that there was a debate surrounding this phrase—a phrase that I occasionally ‘sed and ss eLNGURHY RE SSTOAPREEEPUBIE, But a | soon discovered purists were attacking reason is Because left and right. almst fl bad forte ite guy -AnSoon | was filed witha ssf positon Determined fed he undo, coiidanent age i Ea rio ete’ Ditonaryof English Usage. According to Webster’, purists object to reason is because for two reasons: (1) k's redundant, Because, they say, means “for the reason that," so essentially, reason is Because ‘means “the reason is forthe reason that.” (2) The phrase the reason is requires a noun clase to complete it, That introduces «noun clause; because introduces an adverb These objeto sum tae no oom for emption, but Meriam- ebro. sunset een Bi, rung that heals aid don by th prstsare jut way to leptimie their psonat pretence. ji hire por) The way he prin de fiE WR ecu gman rundane when beens may cul) ‘mean “forthe fat that” or may simply serve as a replacement for tha, And if Because can eefer to pronouns such as his and it ("This i because," "I is because”), why can’t because refer toa ‘noun, like reason? Respectable writers have been using reason is because since the seventeenth ‘century, Reason is because is twice as common in speech than reason i that, including ad eon hscanneiesvoreconmnen-in instances in which there are other words separating reason and i. ‘After all that research, I concluded that the use of reason is Because is simply a matter of style. This usage maybe unpopular but here re egtimate cla backing itp. Heder pHIE ht alc tnetehtaveny renee ibeeemse on principles hubitthey& ‘A similar case is the hotly debated use ofthe spit infinitive, Purists are quick to declare ‘that infinitves should never be split, bu they fil to acknowledge that this outdated rule comes from a characteristic of Latin that does not apply to English. In Latin, infinitiveseannot be split ‘because they are only one word. English, however, uses a two-word infiniive—to run 0 jump, 1 speak, ete.—so extra words can be inserted into an infinitive, Even if you're a splitinginitive ‘ater, you have to admit that tar Trek's boldly go sounds a ot beter than boldly 10 go or to 40 boldly. The “no split infintives” rule is one that Carol Saller might classify as “closer to superstition” (7). If yu" editing for an extremely conservative publication, it might be best ro ‘remove split infinitive, But otherwise, there is no reason to do so, Although ome dep-sated prescriptivists might disturbia trent dig-hatd deseriptivists may also make poor choices language Th far-ltdeserptivst group comprise hase who recoil fom reseribed language rules, Some are self-proclaimed desrptivss, and desided so, These are the fos who won't touch Chicago witha thiy-nine-anda-halF-foot poe. Others ae more like “linguistic hippies” who simply don’t ate about core usage. As fra they are concerned, anything goes, For the dscriptivist group as a whole, there sno ight or wrong Way 1 se language. Therefore, thee is no need to comet anyone's language, end doing so makes you some kindof ei fascist. But the whole reason that editing exists sa profession i because there is anced for well-informed! people to astess writen language before publi _welbinformedimentiona use of eason is became, Hert juste reason ieheoanse Bet yo identi) Not necessarily to correc the writing ut to smooth t,o make itclean and “understandable, to make certain thatthe author's reputation will be maintained. Someanie ] Kester al‘Arrogant preseriptivst editors lse sight of that purpose. They get «litle too power- hungry with their need to prove themselves as linguistically superioe. And they get litle too trigger-happy with that rod pen, They start correcting things that don't necessarily need to be corrected, And by doing that, they interfere withthe writer's style dike theappaniie ofa tio edn, As Any Eis puts, “Copyetor ae not hired fr he pupose of imposing thei own ste and sense of style on the author” (9). This concep i difclt for many of wsteptntote,ncang me, When we think of eussves asthe ones who knows everything and the author asthe enemy of proper usog, i's easy flint dhe tap of making the author's work our own in the name of “correctness. ”-Hut we We have to ealze that iis posible to “ake a fesh and well-voiced text and eit the life ou oft (Sale), One things hat uddsolaidhe writers voice AMGEN ar nt snetoned by conservative usage. Like split infitivs, Or reason s Because, And if wear too hasty in making changes, ‘we might “hamsting the writer and impoverish his prose” (Salle 7). We certainly don’t want to do that, Purists who condemn evry sentence fragment ae forgting thats not our jb o tear down the author or expose ber flaws, Our jb is merely “wo cmest..locutons that elke to ‘confuse, distract, or distr readers” (Bins 9). Our jo isto build up the author's rely ‘with clear writing that til elects the author's style. And ha’ cause that everyone, prescrptvists and descripivst lik, ean get behind. Recently, an asountant in my’office tumed to me and asked, "You're an eter, right? Is it wrong toed a wRHSEHEGREih 1" Igo alot giddy and spouted off my deserpivist pilosophy thi. Ending # sentence with preposition doest relly mater, [tld him, unless ‘you'ee writing fora publication that quires very conservative usage. But in speech, it hardly“Well, what about irregardless?” he asked next paused. I considered irregardless to be ‘poor usage, and I would never let it stand in a manuscript I was editing. But’ just told him ‘asa desciptivist and that I didn’t like the idea of judging someone's language. “Wellin speech it doesn't matter as much,” I said finally. “Aer all, people still know ‘what you mean. But ‘regardless has aba reputation. It would reflect poorly on the author. Sof ‘would edit it out ‘Te segura coed my reasoning and exes approval for my eng philosophy, And I thought mayb, jst maybe, Lhad kept one me person fom hating starr Besa there's no denying that we ein ve abd epuation. When author bring ‘me their work to edit, they act like they're laying down an offering for an angry Aztec god. “Nos want sty. Tm your en” But hey back aay nero, imagining ow bony ther nase wil lok when ty come to pickit up. When they do comeback fori dhey edge into the room and ask, “How bad was it?” “Not bad ata say, but when I hand back thee manuscript with all the red marks, they Took at me ike I've betrayed them. mrka Pant say tM be Esl une fiver ink coin, Real makes people ervent st shinkcd SE ojuat pie tereipe At rouly-aonBul they cone 1 find hav make changes for clarity, eoncision, consistency. leave things for style and voice. I try to be as considerate possible. I strive for balance. An that's the ental point of my philosophy: balance, Although T consider myself mre deserpivit than pesriptivt, I'm both. When sme sued shit looks down fom his igh horse and si,“ hom, atl” jst want to last the Beats and sesam, “Lette!” But when hear a wgaly adolescent gush, “twas Ira aed o my sea Tight candle snd say a prayer forthe English language. Ihave both prescriptive and descriptive tendencies thinkit's impossible to bean editor if you're not atleast a Tite bit prescriptive. But my background in linguistes has solidified my descriptiveness. Isee the value in both viewpoints. Preseriptivism provides order and el ty in language. Descriptvism allows varity and style. And when we can find a balance between the two, we end up with readable manuserits that ae fll of ie, which {is all that an editor can hope for in this world