You say /wʊdv/? I don’t believe it for a minute. Every english speaker and their kid brother says /wʊdəv/ which is why people write would of in the first place because of also is /əv/.
Now who’s being perdantic? I don’t think you really believe that, and you write as though you have a pretty clear idea in your mind of what ought to be. Is there no room in your descriptivist view to prefer clarity over murkiness, or precision over sloppiness?
That’s odd. “Would of” and “would’ve” are pronounced exactly the same in my dialect. Here’s a pronunciation entry for “would’ve” and it transcribes it as /ˈwʊdəv/, which is exactly “would” + “of.”
Pi ought to equal 3. It’s far cleaner and makes for easier math.
Not only am I being perdantic, I am being persnickety. Or maybe you are. (I know: just that some typos are funnier than others. I’ve certainly made my share.)
I’m always gob-smacked (how many people recognize that word?) that pedants don’t understand the multitudes of layers of formality and informality in the spoken and written language. Or the way that the spoken language leads and shapes the written language. Do you honestly eschew all slang and idiom from your speech at all times in every situation? Do you understand that it’s the lack of slang and idiom that is a hallmark of a non-native speaker of a language? Do sentences and paragraphs come out of your mouth fully formed every time? Do you labor over every post to hone it to pithy precision?
And do you have any lines at all that separates out what you consider proper and not? Do you have one standard that you apply to everyone for every occasion? If you have more than one, then tell me the difference between your standards and mine.
I assume it’s some flavor of the fundamental attribution error.
First of all you’re quite correct, slang is a completely different thing. It was late at night and I was off on a rant about incorrect usage in general, and realized shortly after I wrote it that I was conflating two different things.
Now with that out of the way, let me try to explain to you how language works with the aid of an expert, namely yourself. In this post you responded to the claim that “I hate, hate, hate the idea that if a certain number of people misspell a word for a certain number of years, it then is rendered acceptable to do so, and entered into dictionaries as such”. You responded to it as follows:
*No, because the good writers as I defined them don’t commonly make this mistake.
Usage changes when good writers adopt the new usage, not when poor writers do. The use of apostrophes in plurals won’t be entering dictionaries, even if 100,000,000 people get it wrong. *
This is actually not true in the general case – spelling changes, idioms, and all manner of language changes do sometimes enter the language through persistent incorrect usage, but it’s the good writers who endow it with many of its best and most expressive aspects. This is why mistakes – that is, usage variants that are the result of simple ignorance rather than creative license – are annoying and deserve to be pointed out and corrected. Whether or not it’s “how language works”, it’s stupidity and should be fought – it’s a battle that the literate should try to win.
Had I been around in 1771 – apparently Herbert Lawrence’s Contemplative Man was the first known inversion of “heels over head” into its presently common form – I would probably have been annoyed and pointed out the error. However, it still retains more or less the desired connotation of tumbling. The annoying thing about “could care less” is that it’s exactly wrong because a crucial negative has been omitted. It’s much the same as if I criticized a co-worker’s plan as “putting the horse before the cart”, which any reasonable person would take as praise for doing things in the right order. Idioms are idioms, but when someone, out of ignorance, perverts an existing idiom into a precisely ass-backwards version of the original then I think I have the right to be annoyed and consider it wrong.
Hold on a minute. I see plenty of usage like this:
If you **loose **this game, **your **going to hell and its really hot over their. See that dog? Hold this ball over it’s head.
Are you saying that all of that is now correct, since there (their? they’re?) are a lot (alot?) of places where that would seem completely fine? Is there literally no way to be wrong in a language, as long as you can get your (you’re? ur?) point across (acrost?).
If you think you’ll ever change anybody’s mind about which form of an idiom is the “correct” one, then you have another think coming.
“So, for the record, once again, and hopefully for the last time: I have never said that ‘anything goes’ when it comes to language. Read my lips. I have never said that ‘anything goes’ when it comes to language. Nor do I know of any linguist who has said such a thing. The whole point of sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and the other branches of linguistics which study language in use is actually to show that ‘anything does not go’. The only people who use the phrase ‘anything goes’ are prescriptivists desperately trying to justify their prejudices.”
I love you. Be mine always. 
I suppose this was directed at me. However, I was responding to Exapno who wrote that “‘[t]here ought’ has zero meaning in usage.” That’s pretty close to “anything goes.”
Well, he’s right and I’m not really sure what gymnastics you’re arriving at to conclude they’re expressing anywhere close to the same idea.
“‘There ought’ has zero meaning in usage.” is simply pointing out that data doesn’t give a shit about your feelings.
When I say, just for practice, “I could care less about your stupid cat,” I find myself raising my eyebrows, leaning forward slightly, nodding a tiny bit, and giving a pinched frown at the end. When I say, “I couldn’t care less about your stupid cat,” I furrow my brow, shake my head, and look slightly askance. Curious if others have different body language to accompany the idioms.
The first one is definitely in my aggro sarcasm body language: I might use similar body language if I said, “Yeah, you’re real funny, asshole.” The second is body language I might use along with, “Jesus, what the fuck is wrong with you?”
Hmmm, the mental leap doesn’t seem that difficult to me. Whatevs. When your right, ur rite. Usage! Freedom!
That’s just peachy. Yet I can’t help but notice that David Crystal – and for that matter, our own Exapno Mapcase – who hold “prescriptivists”* in such disdain, actually write correctly themselves; indeed, they write so well that not even the most fastidious prescriptivist could find fault with it.
Meanwhile I note that Exapno still hasn’t clarified what he meant by the statement that, in effect, “good writers” don’t make stupid mistakes. Which of course I completely agree with. Apparently a mistake ceases to be stupid and becomes an amazing example of the dynamic advancement of language just as soon as I point out how wrong it is. 
–
- whatever the hell that word is actually supposed to mean
The connection between words and their meanings is always arbitrary. “I could care less” means “I couldn’t care less” because that’s what people mean when they say it. It doesn’t make sense.
As a linguistic professor of mine said many long years ago -
Regards,
Shodan
Well said.
“There ought” has as much meaning in usage as it has in chemistry: saying “there ought to be an element that can play the banjo” is as meaningful as saying “there ought to be a preference for the idiom” etc. The question isn’t what OUGHT to be; the question is what IS.
But saying that “there ought” means nothing in chemistry in no way indicates that anything goes in chemistry: getting rid of that absurd phrase doesn’t make manifest the banjo-playing element. In the same way, getting rid of “there ought” in linguistics in no way makes anything go.
What matters isn’t what ought; what matters is what is.
Firstly, you’re wrong. There is no piece of writing so perfect that not a single grammarian couldn’t find something to bitch about and if they can’t, they’ll take a page from Dryden’s book and invent something and god help us if it catches on as thoroughly.
Since descriptivism doesn’t mandate a particular way of writing, I’m afraid your “You use SE too!” isn’t much of a gotcha, either. You will not find Exapno, Crystal or me arguing that ur rite should be acceptable in a scholastic essay, for example, even if only because current cultural standards reject the construction.
If you had bothered to read the article I’d linked, you’d have found this as Crystal’s conclusion, " It is the role of schools to prepare children for the linguistic demands that society places upon them. This means being competent in Standard English as well as in the nonstandard varieties that form a part of their lives and which they will frequently encounter outside their home environment in modern English literature, in interactions with people from other parts of the English-speaking world, and especially on the internet. They have to know when to spell and punctuate according to educated norms, and when it is permissible not do so. In a word, they have to know how to manage the language - or to be masters of it (as Humpty Dumpty says to Alice in Through the Looking Glass). And, one day, to be champions of it - all of it."