[tomcatfish]

> bastardization

What is this universal, pure English you've been speaking? I must have missed the tablets on which it was written?

Non jokingly: There is no "bastardization" of a natural language. It is spoken how it is spoken and insisting otherwise is missing the point of language (I suggest it is "communication"). There is no King of English to sit and dictate the rules except for the common languages spoken.

If you want to really grok the concept, take some time to figure out what a "language" actually is. I'll give you a hint: your first 5 definitions have obvious failings.

[denton-scratch]

I don't agree that contemporary usage defines the language. We have a canon of English literature reaching back centuries, and people use phrases from e.g. Shakespeare without eveen noticing they're doing it. I think it would be a shame if learning contemporary usage should fail to equip you to read Shakespeare.

Descriptivism is all very well; but it doesn't seem to allow for any usage to be actually incorrect.