Why are the Americans ruining our language?

[bmerton]

Whilst I think that this website is interesting, I object to Cecil's final comments about the usage of 'different to' as opposed to 'different from' and the way that he admonishes English speakers in the United Kingdom.

The misleading assertion that 'logic demands the former' is unjustified within the context of language. Webster sought to make the English language logical (a concept that is inconceivable, except for Microsoft) and I am not aware of a worthy justification for his desecration of the process of the evolution of language. I have heard two excuses: 1) Webster, and the other philistines, did it to make writing English simpler, 2) He did it because he wanted to distance the Americans from the English by changing the spelling of certain words. Neither of these reasons justifies the desecration of the heritage bestowed on those of us lucky enough to speak such a beautiful language. The American 'logicising' of English is the linguistic equivalent of the Taliban's destruction of Buddhist temples in Afghanistan.

English is a language, like many others, that has evolved over a great many hundreds of years. During this evolution it has developed countless idiosyncracies that define its beauty and diversity as a language. I am not suggesting that we develop an equivalent to the French Academy, which seeks to cling on to redundancies purely because they are French. The evolution of language must be allowed to occur but this should not be dictated by individuals.

Americans, under the banner of simplification, make words such as paedophile (from the Greek) into a combination of Latin and Greek that actually means 'foot lover' (pedophile). Is this because Americans are incapable of coping with two juxtaposed vowels because I fail to see how this arbitrary removal of letters could be regarded as 'simplification'? In the United States, one talks of 'aluminum'. Consider sodium, calcium, barium, lithium, potassium, magnesium, titanium, uranium, gallium, germanium, cadmium, rubidium etc.? Where is this supposed 'logic'. Name one other element that ends in simply 'um'. Surely Caesium should be renamed 'Cesum'.

Grammar and spelling are derived from language, which is a function of human expression. It is as fatuous to try to simplify language as it is to try to simplify human expression.

I appeal for the return to writing and speaking an unhomogonised, unpasteurised and uncorrupted language in America.

[Critical1]

"English is a language, like many others, that has evolved over a great many hundreds of years. During this evolution it has developed countless idiosyncracies that define its beauty and diversity as a language"


WHAT?

hmmmmmmm I have absolutly nothing nice to add to this post so I will keep it really short. why would you want to keep one of the most difficult languages on the planet to learn in it current pain in the ass to learn state? I am with Ben Franklin on this one we should have an american written language where the rules like i before e are just that, no except in this or that or in a bunch of words just because. ok I lied it wasnt really short but it was fairly short. gnight

[Dave Stewart]

What's the big deal? Let Americans speak American English, Australians speak Australian English and the English speak the Queen's English.

I find the differences, the simplifications, the statis, and the changes really interesting. Its not butchery - its evolution.

In Japan, people in Osaka speak Osaka dialect. On negative verbs you stick a "hen" instead of a "nai" like you do in Standard (Tokyo) Japanese. Everyone still understands each other, nonetheless. Each dialect has a certain parochial and certainly cultural flavour to it which I quite like.

There is no reason why English can't have the same useful, entertaining and flavoursome sense of reflection of background. When I see someone write "gaol" instead of "jail", I know I am amongst my own*. If I see someone write "ass" instead of "arse", I am struck with a sense of recognition of the English of another land (and I usually grin too). I enjoy hearing variations of my mother tongue, spoken or written by someone else.

Heaven help us if there was no diversity in ourselves and in the language which reflects ourselves.

*[sub] or amongst people from the British Isles or New Zealand, but not North Americans.

[matt_mcl]

Both you and Cecil are wrong. He has no basis for telling off Britons for speaking British English, anymore than you have a basis for comparing Americans to the Taliban for speaking American English.

Dialectal variations are natural and beautiful. A world without Australian English, Québécois French, Castillian Spanish, and Florentine Italian would be more boring than this one. To define your own or another's regional variations as closer to some ethereal standard of perfect English is not only insulting, it's also meaningless.

[Liberal]

Webster sought to make the English language logical (a concept that is inconceivable, except for Microsoft)...

Microsoft is a concept? Or did you mean "by Microsoft"?

[pldennison]

Originally posted by bmerton
Americans, under the banner of simplification, make words such as paedophile (from the Greek) into a combination of Latin and Greek that actually means 'foot lover' (pedophile). Is this because Americans are incapable of coping with two juxtaposed vowels because I fail to see how this arbitrary removal of letters could be regarded as 'simplification'?

I asked my friend Laura and she said that, no, we have no problems with diphthongs. Also you are missing a much-needed semicolon or question mark after "vowels." The sentence as written is much too confusing without it.

[Liberal]

I think it means that we are incapable owing to his failure. Do I get a gold star? Or maybe some other color?

[Green Bean]

You posted this same OP in 2 other forums--GQ and CCC.

[El_Kabong]

The evolution of language must be allowed to occur but this should not be dictated by individuals.

So you'll excuse us if we ignore your calls to speak the queen's English, if that's really your point.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by bmerton
In the United States, one talks of 'aluminum'. Consider sodium, calcium, barium, lithium, potassium, magnesium, titanium, uranium, gallium, germanium, cadmium, rubidium etc.? Where is this supposed 'logic'. Name one other element that ends in simply 'um'. Surely Caesium should be renamed 'Cesum'.

Platinum?
Tantalum?
Molybdenum?

[Mangetout]

Oops, sorry, that was three, not one

bmerton. why is it such a big deal; languages evolve, why should we stop that happening? Who is actually harmed by the fact that Americans spell it 'color' or pronounce it aluminum? (I'm with Dave Stewart on this one - sometimes it is actually a useful cue to the nationality of the author).

[Stanislaus]

Originally posted by Libertarian

Microsoft is a concept? Or did you mean "by Microsoft"?

Nah. He meant that, for Microsoft, the concept is conceivable. Similarly, it may not be possible for them to realise this concept.

[Jackmannii]

So why have the Brits shortened "polyethylene" to "polythene"? Dumbing down, Lord Bubba?

You'll be pleased to hear that orthopedic surgeons in this country have taken to calling their specialty "orthopaedics". Though I suspect the main reason is that it sounds ritzier and justifies higher fees.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Jackmannii
So why have the Brits shortened "polyethylene" to "polythene"? Dumbing down, Lord Bubba?

Yeah!, and shortened 'Spiced Pork and Ham' to SPAM. Unforgivable!

[Duck Duck Goose]

Cross-posted, Copy & Pasted OP. Yo, Merton, you haven't got an "agenda" or anything like that, have you?

Locked in GQ, as it wasn't a GQ.

Still open in Comments.

[Kayeby]

Originally posted by bmerton
The evolution of language must be allowed to occur but this should not be dictated by individuals.

Forgive me for being particularly dense, but how else would a language evolve?

[Tars Tarkas]

Yeah, we should all drop English as a language, less we ruin it. All of the world should speak Klingon, the one true tongue!

[pennylane]

bmerton, I understand your pain. For many years I have wondered why Americans feel the need to spell words like "colour" and "foetus" differently. In time, I have come to accept these differences. I feel that they have been used for so long now, that it would be unreasonable to ask or expect anyone to change. What I cannot stand are grammatically incorrect phrases which are currently becoming more and more widely-used. Slang words, acronyms, idiomatic expressions and other additions to the language do not bother me. Phrases such as "on accident" or "a one and a thousand chance", and the use of the word "lay" in the present tense fill me with fear that such instances of grammatical error will one day be accepted as correct, even in our dictionaries. I cringe at the thought that all tenses and prepositions will one day be interchangeable as the English language degenerates into ungodly babble. But what can we do to stop this?

If you have any ideas, I'm all ears...

[Homebrew]

gobshite

Did I use English correctly?

[Captain Amazing]

As I mentioned in your post in GQ, in many cases, modern American spelling and pronunciation is closer to 18th century British English than modern British English is. As I also said, languages change over time, dialects develop, and these dialectual differences strenghen the language. There's no one "correct" English, because English isn't a language granted to the people by heaven. It evolved and mutated by being spoken. There was a TV miniseries called "The Story of English" that might interest you. It looks at how the language has taken its present form.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Aluminum was originally named "alumium" by Sir Humphry Davy, who later changed it to "aluminum" (perhaps in an attempt to make it more Latinized since alumen is Latin for alum, the aluminum compound that the name is derived from). The British (and allied English speakers) shortly thereafter changed the name once more, this time to "aluminium" so that it would again match the pattern of most other elements (helium, sodium, etc.), while the North Americans eventually decided to keep the second, slightly more traditional name.

I predict that North Americans will adopt the more regular "-ium" spelling by the year 2050, prompting the British to start calling it "alumininium".

[mrblue92]

Originally posted by Homebrew
gobshite

Did I use English correctly?

From that site:

"go f*** yourself! Exclam. An exclamation of anger at someone, such as 'get lost!' The demand isn't meant literally."

Whew. Good thing I read that.

Anyway, in regards to the OP... what you seem to be saying is that it's peachy keen if you modify the language, but a crime if we do it. (Otherwise you'd still be speaking Old English, wouldn't you?) You see, that's generally referred to as 'hypocrisy' here.

But let's be practical. We're democratic countries, right? We could just vote on the Standard, one English speaker, one vote. After all, those who disapprove would be in the minority, and therefore it would take much less effort for the minority to switch over to whatever method the majority approves of.

Or we could just let people speak how they want to speak. So long as the primary goal of communication is met most people will be satisfied. If you personally want to speak beautifully, no one's stopping you.

[Fretful Porpentine]

But let's be practical. We're democratic countries, right? We could just vote on the Standard, one English speaker, one vote. After all, those who disapprove would be in the minority, and therefore it would take much less effort for the minority to switch over to whatever method the majority approves of.

You mean we would all have to learn South Asian English? Careful what you wish for ...

[bibliophage]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Still open in Comments.

Not any more.

bmerton, posting the same thread in two different forums is called cross-posting and is not allowed here. Please don't do it again.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

[everton]

Maybe bmerton is getting confused between what is correct and what is commonly used?

Apart from any considerations about whether Americans are ruining our language, and whether we should be upset about that, different from is the grammatically-correct form of the phrase in British English. Even in this country "different to" is only used by (the many) people who have not been taught correctly, and any amount of (mis)usage cannot make it correct, any more than "should of" will become correct through its further misuse.

I shan't be losing any sleep over Americans' decisions to spell words any way they choose. For what it's worth, you have all just witnessed my first ever use of the word "shan't" – I normally, and deliberately, use "won't" even though I know it to be non-standard. Remember what they say about people who live in glass houses?

[mrblue92]

Originally posted by Fretful Porpentine
You mean we would all have to learn South Asian English? Careful what you wish for ...

What you say? Me speaking English good like, you think not?

Seriously, but, me think last thought mine best one is.

:d&r:

[msmith537]

"Me speak bad English? That's unpossible!"
-Ralph Wiggum, The Simpsons

[JepSnertRF]

I can relate to our British friend, and as an American, I see the decline of our language in the decline of intelligence, sheer laziness in proper speech, and from political correctness. But American culture is not to blame.

Simply put, eubonics and spanglesh are no more significant than pig latin.

Why should we consider someone's lazy, ignorant (though that's often the only big word in some peoples' vocabularies) foul speech and slang as legitimate language?? I am insulted that our English language is being destroyed because slang words and the gross misuse of grammar are excused because they are "part of a different culture." We have the dual problem of sloth and being PC, and this should be dealth with. I am tired of hearing people speak of wielding hatchets at other people and things. Let's get back to a standard language and unite our diversities as Americans and share at least Englsh.

[Asylum]

Originally posted by JepSnertRF
I can relate to our British friend, and as an American, I see the decline of our language in the decline of intelligence, sheer laziness in proper speech, and from political correctness. But American culture is not to blame.

Simply put, eubonics and spanglesh are no more significant than pig latin.

Sheesh.

[scampering gremlin]

[xenophobia]

bmerton, it's time for a gentle reminder. Are ninety percent of the world's Internet sites written in English because of your country's economic and technological leadership? I think not.

Those of us across The Pond have no obligation to prostrate ourselves before your dialect. It's a national self-respect we've earned through a revolution, two world wars spent saving your collective butts, and our current status as the world's only superpower.

Your increasingly marginal spelling and speech habits still garner a modest amount of respect. Rather than evoke the subtlety and refinement of British English at its best, your post demonstrates a snobbery potent enough to drive away even the most anglophilic Americans.

So I'll keep on corrupting your language. And if that doesn't please you than just try to recolonize me.

Nyah nyah.

[/xenophobia]

[Asylum]

First off, credit given where credit due: I borrowed part of my argument from this guy.

I fail to understand the problems that people have with, what is in essence, language evolving. Slang and improper grammar are all parts of what may evolve into proper usage. To quibble over whether or not someone says "one on a thousand" or "one in a thousand" in day-to-day informal conversation is beyond me (sorry pennylane I just scanned for an example and saw yours first).

Which brings me to my point: ultimately "proper" usage is determined by the situation. I think that we are all aware that the way we speak and the way we write are very different, and you can take it further (?) than that: how people write a formal essay compared to how they write a note to leave on the counter, or how one speaks to one's friends as opposed to how one speaks to one's boss. I would defy anyone to go into a southeast DC neighborhood and speak using the same grammar as they would in a doctoral thesis and believe they would be understood. And if you do something like this ask yourself in hindsight, who actually had the "proper English" in that encounter? In that situation, and others similar to, and more realistic than it, the person who's home territory you are on has the proper Engish.

This is not to say that all new slang and improper grammar will become the new standard, just that some will. Just pointing out that the ones that do may become the "idiosyncrasies," that the OP pointed out, for later generations.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to always use the most appropriate language considering the circumstances nor is there something wrong with correcting someone who is speaking, or writing, improperly considering the forum, but there should also be an understanding that often times people who are not using proper English as defined in grammar books are using English that has come to be considered mainstream. At this point the majority rules, and "one on a thousand" becomes proper.

[pennylane]

If someone were to say, "one and a thousand gangsters chased me down the street", I wouldn't have any problem with it. But if the same person says, "the doctors said that there was a one and a thousand chance that my child would be born with this disorder", I do have a problem with it, and my problem is that it is completely meaningless in that context.

[Izzardesque]

Ok, this is getting a little heated now, but then I suppose that’s the point of the Great Debates threads. Well, here’s my two cents worth or should I say two pence worth as I’m British?

Before I start, two books some of you might find interesting on this subject, both by Bill Bryson, an American mainly brought up in England (or is it the other way around?) so is quite qualified to talk about the differences. The first is ‘Made in America- an informal history of the English Language in the United ‘, and the second is ‘The Mother Tongue – English and How it Got That Way’. I haven’t read the second one yet, as its on order, but if its anything like the first then it’s a very well written text, but very light hearted too. I apologise now if I steal any arguments from these books!

The way I see it is that so far points have been made on both sides that perhaps are over stating the truth and I will try and deal with them in some sort of order (that order being whichever comes to mind first!).

I suppose I ought to deal with BMerton’s OP first(I defended him over in a GQ thread which I’m feeling a bit miffed about now!).

You accuse Webster of dictating the English language in order to formalise it. You say this is wrong. So you don’t think that Dr Johnson, one of the great British academics, was dictating the English language when he wrote the first ever dictionary? Do you know how many words exist in the English language. He wouldn’t have been able to note and define every single one. He had to make choices as to what he thought constituted ‘proper’ English. This dictionary then became the basis of what was regarded as proper English and went on to become the Oxford English Dictionary, the very arbiter of what IS and ISN’T a ‘proper’ English word. Technically, if it isn’t in the OED, it isn’t English (or at least within Britain it isn’t). So, while I feel the French have taken it WAY too far, we are also as guilty of forcibly modifying our language too.

Secondly, Dave Stewart is right. English is going to be different everywhere. If you can’t cope with American English being different to ‘English’ English, then how the hell do you cope with the difference between our local vocabularies? Does someone from Newcastle speak the same English as someone from Cornwall or Wales. Hell no!

Again, those who have said that there is a proper grammar, that this grammar is set in stone and should never be changed are taking things too far. Grammar is there for a reason – it is there to lay down some ground rules to enable us to understand each other. Grammar 500 years ago was VERY different from grammar today. These things will change and as long as we can all understand what another says, as long as we pretty much follow the same rules, whats the problem?

The only other point I can remember offhand (Thank God I hear you all cry!) is that American English actually a lot closer to the English of 1800 than British English is. Apparently, this is true and is down to the fundamentally conservative nature of those who formed the first Pilgrims. These are people who fled to preserve their way of life as they saw it, so they regarded it as fundamental that they rpeserved their language too. An example is the word Fall to descrie Autumn. An early 19th Century Englishman would not now what Autumn meant – he would have used fall.

Anyway, enough of this rant – the only thing is to quote scampering gremlin “Saving your collective butts in two World Wars”. You joined for your own reasons- watch what you say!! *grin*

[pennylane]

What's the point of having any grammar rules or dictionaries at all? In fact, what's the point of even having formal languages? We can probably make ourselves understood quite well by gesticulating and grunting as we used to in the good old days...

Finally, I see the light.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by pennylane
What's the point of having any grammar rules or dictionaries at all? In fact, what's the point of even having formal languages? We can probably make ourselves understood quite well by gesticulating and grunting as we used to in the good old days...

AWK!! AWK!! EEH-EEH-EEH!! HUH!

Sua

[5-HT]

Am I the only one who has never heard anyone use the phrase "one and a thousand"? Come to think of it, I only hear "one in a thousand" rarely. "One in a million" is quite common, though I have alway heard it used with "in a" not "and a"

[pegleg]

Hear, Hear, IZZARDESQUE. You will enjoy the second Bryson book. Recommended to all fans of American (and Canadian)spoken English. The OP might be a little less tight-assed if he read them.

[pennylane]

Well, I've only seen it once, so I don't know why I've been making such a big deal about it...

No, wait, what I meant to say was:

ba weet grana weet miniban

erk erk

rok

[Izzardesque]

pennylane, I didn't say we shouldn't have any grammar at all. We need grammar in order to make ourselves understood, and if it is abused too much then what we say and write becomes incomprehensible. But rigidly enforcing very strict, and in some cases archaic, rules of grammar is counter productive.

I'm with 5-HT tho, I've never heard the expression using AND either

[El_Kabong]

AWK!! AWK!! EEH-EEH-EEH!! HUH!

Well, I think that according to Standard Grunt that should have been:

AEWK!! AEWK!! OEEH-OEEUH-OEEUH!! HUH!

But, like, whatever.

[pennylane]

Sure, fine, Izzardesque! I'm even willing to accept "Where my homies at?"

But can we at least keep our tenses? (Please, please!)

I could not understood why people will want to said "lay" instead of saiding "lie"!

[pulykamell]

I've also never heard "one and a thousand." Do people really say this?

penny- ha, ha. we're all laughing. i don't believe anyone suggested we eliminate orthography or grammar.

ok, here we go. let's start with the difference between "descriptivist" vs "prescriptivist" grammar, for those of us who have missed these threads in the past. I think it'll help our little debate here. A precriptivist grammarian tells you what's right and what's wrong. Don't use double negatives. Don't split infinitives. Every sentence needs a subject and a verb. Etc, etc, etc. A descriptivist simply notes how people talk. Believe it or not, Ebonics, or Black Vernacular English, has a completely valid and natural grammar. Speakers of BVE follow sets of rules that can be codified just as strictly as the grammar of Standard English. I've never understood what the big deal with BVE was. I don't believe anyone anywhere has ever said that BVE not be taught in conjunction with Standard English, but that's another debate.

Prescriptivists argue there is a proper grammar, and that, from a linguistic standpoint, is bullshit. Yes, we need to codify rules in order to facillitate communication and ensure some consistency in the written word, but grammar does change with time, and it is worth acknowledging that change and letting go of old-fashioned rules which don't reflect current usage. And, to be fair, that is happening. At least according to the Oxford Dictionary of Grammar, split infinitives are now OK. So is ending a sentence with a preposition. Although I'm not a huge fan of the double negative, I'm waiting for that one to get tossed, too. Does anyone really believe that when someone says "I ain't got no money, honey" this means "I have money, honey." If you have any experience with any other language, double negatives are probably required to state a negative. Polish, Hungarian, French, German - "I don't have anything" is said as "I don't have nothing." The rule comes from some English language maven trying to apply mathemetical logic to grammar. It's absurd. Just as the history of not splitting infinitives derives from grammarians basing English grammar on Latin (talk about apples and oranges) and deciding that since Latin doesn't split infinitives, English shouldn't. Do you know why? In Latin, infinitives are one word, so they can't be split!

All I'm saying is it's fine to codify grammar, but care must be taken to actually reflect the way people talk, and not base rules around nonsensical logic. If what somebody says is clear and understandable, what's the problem? I would agree that in formal written English, we should be more conservative for sake of consitency, but rules such as the above should be thrown out the window. They don't apply.


I forgot to bring the Mother Tongue book to the office, but there are several pages exclusively devoted to Bryson pointing out that many words and expressions that the British in the 1800s and 1900s shrugged away as "ugly Americanisms" were originally British coinages. (eg. trash, fall, had gotten, etc.)

[theretsof]

they're could be more better posts here, but the real reason is that americans speak righter than you other guys. aint no other reason that i can enunciate.

[pennylane]

All I'm trying to say is that if grammar evolves according to current usage, does that mean that common spelling and grammatical errors will eventually be incorporated into the language? I agree that certain grammatical rules are redundant and of questionable origin in any case (in the words of Winston Churchill: "this is the kind of pedantry up with which I will not put") but what about errors which arise from common misunderstanding regarding the meaning of certain words and tenses? For example, the use of the word "lay" instead of "lie", or the failure to distinguish between "affect" and "effect". Will these words eventually become interchangeable?

I've only seen "one and a thousand" once. It quite plainly originates from the similarity in the way the words "and" and "in" sound. The writer did not mean to say "one and a thousand". It is similar to the way in which people have begun to write "could of" when they mean "could have". That is my problem with this type of mistake - it is a mistake, and yet it can become common usage if enough people make it.

[pulykamell]

I personally believe that "affect" vs "effect" is a useful distinction, and should be preserved. "Could of" written as such is clearly an error and is actually "could've." To me, that's a spelling mistake more than a grammar mistake.

Certain other distinctions I won't bother so much about. In my neighborhood, nobody seemed to ever use the verb "to lend." It was always, "Hey, can you borrow me a buck?" OK, in all honesty, I don't use that construction, and it drove me nuts for awhile, but it really isn't that weird. In my other mother tongue, Polish, there is no distinction between those two words, and there's no problem in understanding. If English as a whole decided to dispense with "lend," I wouldn't be bitching about it. And if "lay" and "lie" disappear, or one is replaced by the other, so be it. If we decide we can function without distinguishing between these tenses, so be it. I mean, we dispensed with the "you/thou" distinction. And with this, a whole class of conjugations disappered as well. "You are/Thou art," "You have, Thou hast." Do you miss these?

[pennylane]

I believe that "thou" and "you" originally had different connotations, and have become redundant due to changing social dynamics. It would make sense that if the word "thou" were to disappear, all the verb forms which go along with it would disappear too.

It is true that we don't absolutely need the different tenses of "lie", but then we don't absolutely need the different tenses of any word. I, for one, would like to keep them (although it looks like I'm the only one - apart from my faithful ally bmerton, of course).

[pulykamell]

Just to clarify, "thou" and "you" are the equivalent of "tu" and "vous" in French, or "du" and "Sie" in German. "Thou" was singular, familiar second person. "You" was either the second person formal singular or second person plural. Useful? Could be. But, yeah, you're right, the changing social dynamic made them redunant. (and, yes, obviously if "thou" disappeared all the verb forms would, too.)

But that furthers my point. Language is a malleable, organic creature. Grammar and orthography change over time to suit the needs of the users. Language is not going downhill. We are not changing into an ignorant mass - no more so than we were two centuries ago. It's just language changing. That's it. For centuries the evolution of language has been looked upon as somehow a destructive force. Yet I do not honestly believe we have grown stupider over the centuries. We've adapted and have changed our language to suit our needs.

[matt_mcl]

Originally posted by JepSnertRF
Simply put, eubonics and spanglesh are no more significant than pig latin.

Why should we consider someone's lazy, ignorant (though that's often the only big word in some peoples' vocabularies) foul speech and slang as legitimate language?? I am insulted that our English language is being destroyed because slang words and the gross misuse of grammar are excused because they are "part of a different culture."

"To destroy the English language" has no meaning. The English language is how its speakers speak it.

You may certainly argue for a standard acrolect of English. Indeed, such a thing is certainly useful, which is why it exists. Nobody, I think, is arguing for writing bank statements in AAVE or having United Nations meetings translated into borinqueño. But it's unnecessary for you to attack basilectical dialects in this way.

Speaking and writing a standard dialect does not preclude speaking a non-standard dialect, and vice versa. I speak both standard and non-standard Québécois French quite adequately for my purposes, and both are useful at different times.

There is no reason not to educate people in standard English usage for appropriate sociolinguistic contexts, but there is also no reason to attack non-standard English dialects used in other contexts. Standard English is not superior to non-standard English; it's useful in different contexts. Attacking non-standard English is blinkered and pointless.

[Manda JO]

Pennylane, when people say "lay" instead of "lie", they are probably not using the wrong tense of the intransitive verb "To lie". Rather, they are using the correct tense of the incorrect transitive verb "to lay". Tenses are not disappearing, just the awareness of the difference between passive and active verbs.

[pennylane]

Manda JO, people may indeed have started saying "lay down" due to the use of the transitive verb in certain well-known phrases, such as "Now I lay me down to sleep". That would certainly explain the strange way that this usage of the word seems to have spread like wildfire. But it is still (according to me, at least) a mistake.

I don't have any desire to keep the English language pure. I like the fact that new words are constantly being added to our vocabulary - whether they arise from modern technology or gangster rap. I don't abhor changes in grammar or orthography. But I feel that our standards regarding these two subjects are falling a bit. I think that this is not because we are growing more ignorant, but in fact because we are growing less ignorant. In the past, reading and writing were the prerogative of scholars. The general public often could not read and certainly had little opportunity to publish their thoughts and opinions for the perusal of others. The Internet, in particular, is a great equaliser. Every one of us can become a published writer, with no need for proof-readers or editors. This means that we now learn from each other, instead of exclusively from professors and scholarly texts. Of course, the benefits of this, in my opinion outweigh any negative consequences. However, I hope we don't have to sacrifice too many words to the altar of functionality. I've studied many languages, and in my biased opinion English is by far the most expressive.