Things we should do away with

No one has argued this point. I happily concede it.

Rather, what has been argued is that this change has not happened yet, and should not.

Do you have any thoughts on what the rest of us are discussing? Whether or not this change should be made? If yes, why? If not, why not?

 

Fights in which to join.

 

I could kiss you on your justagirlbusiness.

 

He could always go back and delete some of his posts, that would make it easier to change his point.

 

Justagirlbusiness upon which to kiss?

 

You know, I've done what oop did on this thread before, though it's been a few years because I realized that it's much better just to admit my point was wrong.

It starts out when the person makes a point in a discussion and thinks it's a solid/intelligent point. Unfortunately, there are others around who know more about the subject and prove the person wrong. That person then continues to backtrack because they'll never admit they're wrong until they boil their point down to something trite, ie: the English language is ever changing, that is so obvious as to be pointless to bring up in the first place.

 

I'm not offended at all, but, "That's the dumbest thing I'll read all day" is not what I would call a civil argument. Sorry, IJAG, but your respresentation of how this discussion has gone really doesn't hold up.

Is anybody really debating the point that the English language continues to change and grow? All I'm saying is that if people continue to write and speak in a certain way, often that leads to a change in the language. That can mean a change in the rules.

You want an example? Sure. How about the words "want" and "need." Over long periods of times, those two words have switched meanings more than once. That seems really strange to me, but the common usages changed and eventually the formal definitions changed with them.

 

I could, but I don't do that.

 

Grammar Nazis in love.

 

I don't know who to root for for whom to root.

 

Why are you insulting me? It's not my fault you're too dumb to understand my point.

 

You mean the point I made that Mark just conceded? That's all I was saying in the first place. That, and that I know a Linguistics professor who believes that the rule we've been discussing is a candidate for such a change because he believes it is silly and out of date.

That's the thing. Nobody proved me wrong about anything. You may think that, but that is your own failure in reading comprehension. Mark is finally starting to get it, but you are too busy being smug to follow his lead.