# Origins of word 'While' as cause of reason



## sethmachine

Hello everyone,
                     I was wondering if the English word 'while' used in this example:

Decades of denial is simply while I'll be king...
In the sentence, while=the reason for/that

Is related to German word 'weil' which is similar to because.


----------



## berndf

Yes _while_ and _weil_ (MHG _wîle_) are cognates. In German the meaning _as long as_ existed too but is obsolete today.


----------



## Athaulf

sethmachine said:


> Hello everyone,
> I was wondering if the English word 'while' used in this example:
> 
> * Decades of denial is simply while I'll be king...*
> In the sentence, while=the reason for/that



Um... as a native English speaker, you probably know better, but the above sentence sounds ungrammatical to me. Would you be so kind to explain what it's supposed to mean? I honestly have no clue.

Also, I'm not aware of any uses of "while" in the sense listed in the thread title (denoting the cause or reason for something). Could you give some examples?


----------



## sethmachine

What sounds ungrammatical about it to you?  It sounds perfect to my ears.  This use of 'while' is not often seen, but in that case, it stands to mean 'for that reason'

My first example:
Decades of denial is simply while I'll be king...
This also means --> Decades of denial is the reason that I'll be king.  
The only way I can see using the adverb 'simply' is only with 'while'.  I was asking a question regarding whether the use of 'while' in this case is analogous to the German 'weil' which is usually translated as 'because'.


----------



## Athaulf

sethmachine said:


> What sounds ungrammatical about it to you?  It sounds perfect to my ears.  This use of 'while' is not often seen, but in that case, it stands to mean 'for that reason'



First, isn't the subject of the sentence "decades of denial", which is in plural? If so, shouldn't the verb also be in plural ("decades of denial *are*")? Second, I'm totally unfamiliar with this use of "while". 

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, please don't think that I'm trying to correct you. I'm not a native English speaker, and I honestly thought that a native speaker would find the sentence ungrammatical for the above reasons. 



> My first example:
> Decades of denial is simply while I'll be king...
> This also means --> Decades of denial is the reason that I'll be king.
> The only way I can see using the adverb 'simply' is only with 'while'.  I was asking a question regarding whether the use of 'while' in this case is analogous to the German 'weil' which is usually translated as 'because'.


Thanks for the explanation. Honestly, I've never seen such a use of "while", and I can't see it among its dictionary definitions either. Are you sure that this isn't maybe a feature of some local dialect? Where exactly is your example from? 

Could you perhaps give some more examples, preferably from a written source?


----------



## sethmachine

Athaulf said:


> First, isn't the subject of the sentence "decades of denial", which is in plural? If so, shouldn't the verb also be in plural ("decades of denial *are*")? Second, I'm totally unfamiliar with this use of "while".


 
I understand your concern for why the pronoun is 'is' and not are, but is is referring to the reason of decades of denial. Decades of denial is one reason not many. Thus

Decades of denial --> (For that reason) is simply while I'll be king...


----------



## elpoderoso

*Decades of denial is simply while I'll be king...*





Athaulf said:


> Um... as a native English speaker, you probably know better, but the above sentence sounds ungrammatical to me. Would you be so kind to explain what it's supposed to mean? I honestly have no clue.
> 
> Also, I'm not aware of any uses of "while" in the sense listed in the thread title (denoting the cause or reason for something). Could you give some examples?


 
I'm with Athaulf on this one. This sentence makes no sense to me.


----------



## berndf

elpoderoso said:


> *Decades of denial is simply while I'll be king...*
> 
> I'm with Athaulf on this one. This sentence makes no sense to me.


I read very carefully the 5 columns about _while, adv._ and _while, conj._ in The OED and couldn't find anything either which matched this use case.


----------



## CapnPrep

The sentence doesn't make any sense to me, either, I'm afraid. And German _weil_ introduces the cause, whereas this _while_ is apparently introducing the consequence.


----------



## ThomasK

While ;-) reading this quote "*While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State"* (Vladimir Lenin) at http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/subordconj.htm, I started wondering whether there is not a connotation of reason or cause involved or perceived to be present when uttering such a sentence. 

Of course the reference is mainly temporal but here I think a causal link is implicit. It reminds me of the _post hoc, non propter hoc_ fallacy in logic. 

So my point is: while (here we go again, but this time I mean opposition) while refers to simultaneity, it may implicitly imply - if I can say that - a causal link: lots of coincidences 'fuel' some kind of causal thinking. Or so I think.


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> So my point is: while (here we go again, but this time I mean opposition) while refers to simultaneity, it may implicitly imply - if I can say that - a causal link: lots of coincidences 'fuel' some kind of causal thinking. Or so I think.


This is exactly what happend in German around 1600 when _weil_ changed its meaning _from as long_ as to _because_. (cf. Grimm:_ weil, conj. II._)


----------



## ThomasK

AFunny thing is: our Dutch word _terwijl_ is very often used to express contrast. That seems strange to me though, when I now come to think of that...

So I wonder about other associations with _while_ (causal, or opposition/ contrast, or ...) in other languages... 

_(I had a quick look: _wijl _is very old as a noun (for a period of time), dating back to 1100, but the conjunction_ terwijl _turns up in 1628 only, so I read with Nicole van der Sijs, in her chronological dictionary of Dutch.)_


----------



## berndf

_Derweil_ exists in German as well. It means _in the mean time_,_ whereas at the same time_.


----------



## ThomasK

But I believe it is not often used as a conjunction any longer; it is archaic, so I read. But in that case it had that special meaning of contrast, didn't it ?


----------



## berndf

Yes, it expressed simultaneousness with a connotation of contrast, probably as in Dutch. In Standard German it might be archaic but generally understood. In many Regions it is still actively used.


----------



## Hulalessar

Athaulf said:


> First, isn't the subject of the sentence "decades of denial", which is in plural? If so, shouldn't the verb also be in plural ("decades of denial *are*")?


 
It is often the case that English follows the sense rather than strict grammaticality. The important word here is _denial_. There is also a tendency for strict requirements not to be observed where there are gaps. _Denial_ is nearer to the verb than _decades_. In formal English you need to take care, but _decades of denial is_ seems fine to me.


----------



## Fred_C

sethmachine said:


> I understand your concern for why the *pronoun* is 'is' and not are,



is really "is" a pronoun ???


By the way,
Your explanation of the meaning of "while" in this sentence, makes me think that your excerpt means about the same as 
"Decades of denial is simply *why* I'll be king".
Perhaps it is an old spelling, or a strange one?


----------



## se16teddy

According to this source
http://bboard.scifi.com/bboard/browse.php/1/3/99/10/7
fuller context is: 
_Meticulous planning, tenacity spanning, decades of denial is simply while I'll be King undisputed, respected, saluted and seen for the wonder I am. Yes, my teeth and ambitions are bared. Be Prepared!_ 
As far as I can see, this whole paragraph is imaginative and even eccentric in its use of language, and not a really a suitable specimen for discussing the typical and conventional uses of the word _while. _
Moreover, I don't see that _while _means _because _here: as far as I can see it means _for as long as. _


----------



## ThomasK

You're right, Teddy, about the latter one, but the one I found (a Stalin quote, translated of course), implies or no, suggests, a causal link, doesn't it ?


----------



## se16teddy

ThomasK said:


> You're right, Teddy, about the latter one, but the one I found (a Stalin quote, translated of course), implies or no, suggests, a causal link, doesn't it ?


I suppose so; but to me_ So long as / As long as_ is more closely associated with conditionality or causality than _While _is.


----------



## Hulalessar

Can there be any reasonable doubt that "while" is simply a mistake for "why"?


----------



## ThomasK

I now think things are quite different in Dutch when comparing with English. With us _while_ mainly refers to contrast, the causal link would not be implied, I think. But wanneer and als (when/if) are closely related - but that is the case everywhere, I think. 

Basically I think the causality is not normally implied by the Dutch _terwijl_...  _(But this is early morning and I cannot go into this too much, sorry)_


----------



## Athaulf

berndf said:


> I read very carefully the 5 columns about _while, adv._ and _while, conj._ in The OED and couldn't find anything either which matched this use case.



I also went through the same OED entry, and I agree that it lists nothing similar to what the original poster asked for. 

So, a question for *sethmachine*: could you please provide some additional examples of the use of _while_ that you have in mind?


----------



## Hulalessar

I am a well-read native English speaker and have never come across "while" being used to mean "why". No one can find anything in any dictionary that shows "while" meaning "why". It has to be a mistake.


----------



## nurBahnhof

This appears to be a mondegreen of "decades of denial is simply why I'll be king" from the "Lion King" song "Be Prepared".


----------



## Hulalessar

Told you!

Despite being a well-read native speaker I confess that "mondegreen" is a new word to me.


----------



## sethmachine

Even if it were a mistake, is that not a way of how words develop new meanings/uses never before used?


----------



## Athaulf

sethmachine said:


> Even if it were a mistake, is that not a way of how words develop new meanings/uses never before used?



Yes, such a process is possible and in fact happens very often, but if it's happening with this word, then you should be able to present more examples of such use and demonstrate that it's really catching up. One person's mistake is not a sufficient reason to declare that a word has a new meaning.


----------



## sethmachine

I think only native speakers can affirm that.  Are you thus suggesting that language evolution is altruistic in nature?


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

nurBahnhof said:


> This appears to be a mondegreen of "decades of denial is simply why I'll be king" from the "Lion King" song "Be Prepared".


Yup, and as such, I see no reason to use it as an example. Mr. Rice who wrote the original lyrics clearly knew his English and wrote *why*, which makes perfect sense in that context. 

One swallow does not make a summer...

/Wilma


----------



## Hulalessar

sethmachine said:


> Even if it were a mistake, is that not a way of how words develop new meanings/uses never before used?


 
I suppose all language change could be described as a series of mistakes, but sometimes mistakes stay that way. It is the sort of mistake anyone can make, particularly while typing. In this case it is clearly demonstrated to be a mistake.


----------



## Athaulf

sethmachine said:


> I think only native speakers can affirm that.



Oh, I definitely agree with that. It's just that in this case, we're lacking concrete examples coming from native speakers (either from you or from others). The only example offered so far has turned out to be a typo. 



> Are you thus suggesting that language evolution is altruistic in nature?


I'm not sure what you mean by "altruistic". What I had in mind is that language can change if a mistaken utterance is heard often enough that people start imitating it, whether consciously or unconsciously. (Here I use "mistaken" in the sense that a native speaker would intuitively feel it as mispronounced, ungrammatical, or missing the correct meaning of a word.) To take an example, the grammatically mistaken utterance "long time no see" was (still is?) a common mistake produced by Chinese speakers, and it was probably initially imitated by English speakers for fun, but it ended up becoming an acceptable idiom in modern spoken English. Of course, there are also other ways in which mistaken utterances can gain circulation, for example when people imitate the idiosyncratic style of especially popular or prominent individuals.



Hulalessar said:


> I suppose all language change could be described as a series of mistakes, but sometimes mistakes stay that way.



Well, I guess sometimes the change is slow enough that it would be impossible to pinpoint exactly who made the first "mistake" (for example, very slow phonetic changes). I can also imagine situations where we could say that there is no "mistake" at any particular point. For example, sometimes a word or expression is frequently used as a metaphor or euphemism for X, and then its original use slowly dies out while at the same time it pushes the regular word for X out of circulation.


----------



## sethmachine

Athaulf said:


> Oh, I definitely agree with that. It's just that in this case, we're lacking concrete examples coming from native speakers (either from you or from others). The only example offered so far has turned out to be a typo.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "altruistic". What I had in mind is that language can change if a mistaken utterance is heard often enough that people start imitating it, whether consciously or unconsciously. (Here I use "mistaken" in the sense that a native speaker would intuitively feel it as mispronounced, ungrammatical, or missing the correct meaning of a word.) To take an example, the grammatically mistaken utterance "long time no see" was (still is?) a common mistake produced by Chinese speakers, and it was probably initially imitated by English speakers for fun, but it ended up becoming an acceptable idiom in modern spoken English. Of course, there are also other ways in which mistaken utterances can gain circulation, for example when people imitate the idiosyncratic style of especially popular or prominent individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess sometimes the change is slow enough that it would be impossible to pinpoint exactly who made the first "mistake" (for example, very slow phonetic changes). I can also imagine situations where we could say that there is no "mistake" at any particular point. For example, sometimes a word or expression is frequently used as a metaphor or euphemism for X, and then its original use slowly dies out while at the same time it pushes the regular word for X out of circulation.


 
When I mean altruistic, I mean that in order for a change to a language to become acceptable, that change must be accepted by the majority of native speakers; groups of individuals cannot create a new meaning in a language that would be accepted.  (I am not talking about artificial selection of new meanings/idioms).


----------



## Hulalessar

Why language changes is a mystery - at least to me.

There seem to be two and only two posibilities.

One is that the change originates with an individual. That raises the question of why the rest should follow the individual - at least on the grand scale that languages change.

The other is that languages change spontaneoulsy with everyone making the same changes at the same time. That seems a far-fetched notion and seems to imply some sort of collective telepathy.


----------

