Speak English

Whilst I agree with much of the sentiment behind your post, you are far too quick to malign modern alterations and advancements in language. Sometimes I wonder how people like you thought language started: a book sent to us from on high perhaps? Language EVOLVED through use - i.e. the language that we now consider 'proper' english only became proper english because people en masse accepted it. If someone is communicating in the language that is commonly accepted in that era than they are not using 'bad' grammar - they are using the grammar of the day. Given your superb knowledge of language, I can only assume that you are well-versed in the history of the english language and that you are familiar with the changes over time? You know, those really obvious changes: like how until the middle ages english would use strict tenses and gendered verbs, like the German language still does. You'd also be aware how by Shakespeares day people had stopped using such tenses and gendered verbs because it was far simpler to use a narrower grammatical system that didn't distinguish between superflous tenses and arbitrarily classify inanimate objects into genders with completely different verb structures. Now given your obviously deep knowledge of linguistics, I think you should clarify the point of your post? Are you saying that for the past 1600 years people haven't learnt true english and we should go back to gendered verbs and so on? Or are you restricting it to saying that we should use Shakespearean English? Or are you commenting upon the far more minor recent alterations to the language brought on by some SMS and net-chat users? If you are referring purely to the minor recent abbreviations, why are you allowing the much wider problem of the use of 'words' like 'don't' and 'won't' and that atrocity 'isn't'? After all those words didn't come into common usage until WELL into the middle ages - they certainly aren't the 'original' english language? The test of a language isn't its stability - a language that fails to adapt to new mediums of communication is a dead language (latin anyone?). The real question is are the people using such abbreviations able to communicate with each other? If they are and they aren't losing expressiveness (many would argue that abbreviations like ROFL have taken on emotional expressiveness that can't be adequately communicated in 'old' language), then the language is doing just fine. If you disagree - well frankly you should be taking on the far larger problem of the loss of gendered verbs and the introduction of abbreviations that has been plaguing us for about 1000 years now.