There is no formal board that monitors our language like there is for French or Spanish. We also seem to have an uncommonly high amount of loan words. We are considered a Germanic language but a hell of a lot of our language ultimately comes from Latin or Greek.
Japanese has a notable amount of loan words too. Mostly English due to Occupation, of course, but quite a few European ones as well.
I’m not convinced. How does having a formal monitoring board make a language less open to interpretation? Can you give an example from French or Spanish? Also, about the loan words, the same is true for most Germanic languages, there’s nothing unique about English here. And I don’t see how having loanwords makes a language tougher to interpret. If anything, I’d guess that the comparatively large vocabulary of the English language would allow for less ambiguity.
Home and hone. I constantly see newspapers and websites using the nonsense pharse “hone in on” when they mean “seeks or guides toward”. “The missile honed in on Osama’s camp;” “the linebacker honed in on the quarterback.”
This isn’t a case of idiom nor of “common use.” “Home in on” is a perfectly understandable idiom in its own right – you are going, well, home. “Home in on” was understood, and used to the complete exclusion of “honed in on,” up and until a few years after the internet allowed everyone, even people who’d failed elementary-school English, to effortlessly regurgitate their thoughts into pixels.
Hone means to sharpen. Home means (among other things) to seek out, guide on, or move toward a target. Even other common American uses of “home” have this sense, and anyone who stopped and thought about it would realize “home” is correct in this sense. One doesn’t see honing pigeons racing in the sky. A runner doesn’t try to beat the throw to hone base.
The words are not even homonyms unless one pronounces them lazily.
Sailboat
I think you’re being flip, but I’ll chime in to disagree anyway. In my experience, “I’m like” means that the speaker intends to communicate the tone and attitude of the original statement–the gist, in other words—but not the exact words.
THANK YOU! I was using this wrong because I was thinking hone–sharpen, cut away extra and focus on the central thing–hone in on. Or I wasn’t thinking.
I love learning new things among the usual (justified) gripes.
“Loan words” was definitely the wrong term for me to use. According to some sources, up to 60% of English ultimately has its roots in Latin. A large percentage also comes from Greek. And of course a large percentage is Germanic. It’s probably more accurately described as a loaner langauge than a language with a lot of loan words.
Because they are the final word on what is correct and incorrect in those languages, whereas in English it’s more of a mixture of common use, independent style guides, and dictionaries.
Interesting…I agree with your usage of “I said”, but I use “I’m like” differently. When I say “I’m like”, it means that whatever follows may or may not be what I actually said, but captures the essence of my meaning. If my actual words were different, I’ll usually follow it up in the telling with an “I said”. For example:
So, there was this meeting today to pick a vendor, and Bob and Jillian said they were leaning toward VendCorp, and I’m like “…the fuck?! Remember last year when they boned us out of $200k?” So, I said, “Well, we could go that route, but we’ve had bad experiences with them…”, and Bob looked at me like “shut up or die”. That’s when I remembered his brother owns VendCorp.
For my own contribution…I’m a descriptivist, and do my level best not to get hung up on usage as long as communication is achieved. With that in mind, I offer the following advice to my co-workers: Q & A is an abbreviation meaning Questions & Answers, and refers to the session at the end of a module where the participants can ask the leader questions. QA stands for Quality Assurance, and refers to the process of error-checking the module after we write it. When you mix these up, it is not always clear from context which one you mean. I must therefore ask that you stop using one when you mean the other, or I will punch you in the face. Thanks!
Last time I checked, us Brits spoke English, just like you do. Nothing in the OP said Britishisms were to be treated as quaint exceptions.
Be careful of making assumptions as to why people write in a particular way or with particular vocabulary. If I say ‘whilst’, then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to write it, too.
This reminds me fondly of a moment in grade 10 where I’d dropped “whilst” into an essay (on the Marquis de Sade, of all people). The teacher, a good guy, made that argument–“it’s archaic; nobody you know says that.” “Of course they do!” I said, “why, whilst I was writing this paper I must’ve heard it.” “Nice try. You didn’t lose any marks for it.” Nerts, hey? 
I’ll stop using actress when the Academy stops giving out “Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role” or a “Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role” awards.
Nice try, except I do actually use it. Yes, I’m expecting you to actually take my word for it, which means treating me with a bit more respect than the grade 10 you 
Award for most insecure comment of the day? I don’t remember using the word quaint or exception, nor did I imply either.
Actually, let me amend that. I’ll stop using actress when they stop accepting them.
I only use “whinge” when I mean “whinge.”
Just out of curiosity, do you refer to African Americans as “colored” because of the existence of the NAACP?
I see your point, but only goes so far: the NAACP is the organization, not the annual award: they do not (to my knowledge) hand out an annual “Colored Person of the Year” award.
AMPAS has had no problem re-naming their awards in the past (“Outstanding Picture” begat “Outstanding Production” begat “Outstanding Motion Picture” begat “Best Motion Picture” begat “Best Picture”).
However: my second post was intended to clarify my earlier statement.
True. At least, I hope not.
Still, just because an organization uses a term it doesn’t mean the term is the one the people it refers to would use. Would the women prefer to be called actors or actresses? It seems actors is preferred, so that’s the term I use.
Again, I will cite my 2nd post. If they really were offended by the term, they’d turn down the awards on those grounds and the term would change.
First, getting an Oscar is a Big Deal, and most actors can’t afford to be pissy with the Academy.
Second, why isn’t a preference enough?