Andrew Fildes wrote:
> Some changes are reasonable and acceptable. Some neologisms are
> welcome, some reflect common sense. Some changes reflect changes of
> circumstance - the use of 'car' as an abbreviation of 'motor
> carriage' for instance. Even the modern use of the term 'computer' –
> originally it meant a person who used a mechanical adding machine.
> However, some changes are based on error and ignorance and these are
> not acceptable. Would you accept the writing of 'could of' instead of
> 'could have' or 'alot' instead of 'a lot', both very common errors.
> Popularity is no excuse - that's one of the oldest rules of reasoning.
>
Your acceptance or rejection is of less consequence than the ant's
resistance to the steamroller.
You can piss and moan all you like, get your toga in a knot, screw up
your blood pressure, have a heart attack, whatever you want. In the end,
you die and the language goes on changing in whatever ways it chooses,
not only those of which you approve.
Most of the current language is the result of error and ignorance.
Reason has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Get over it. Language is useful for communication, always imperfect, and
lots of enjoyable play. Don't worry, be happy. ;-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|