I've never quite understood the argument that we shouldn't piddle over people using "
incorrect" grammar because
English is a living
language.
Doesn't the fact that we recognise that English is changing obligate us to change it for the
better? Why not change our language so as to make it more efficient rather than OKing things that detract from the clarity of speech? When we simply
integrate into our language things that were previously
unacceptable, we make it harder to
translate between languages, for people from different
dialects to communicate with each other, and for people to
learn English.
I also have a personal dislike of many
changes that have occured in recent history, because I am aware that they were based in
ignorance. My dictionary includes
possum as a word because enough people had a problem saying "an
opossum" (and "a possum" sounds like "opossum" when one does not enunciate).
Ironic has
lost all meaning.
What's the point? A counter example is
the singular use of "they" has a distinct purpose and, while it is rejected by a fair number, I consider "allowing" it a positive change to
language.
It seems to me that the best course of action would be to learn "
proper" English -
as it is - and make changes through
educated choice.