[brezelnbitte]

His argument is based on an invalid assumption that grammar and languages is immutable or at least that there is only a single source of truth but that is not the case. Language varies with the geography and age and continually evolves and changes.

As long as the idea gets across that’s all that matters. No one will mistake too for to so it’s pointless to care.

I wonder if the grammar test is still used because for any non -writing roles he lacks validity to use it as selection instrument.

[ryandrake]

"Language evolves" is a good reason for why we stop using archaic words, and why new words enter the vocabulary. Nobody says "whichsoever" anymore, but people do say "microwave" because language evolves.

When someone confuses one word for another (they're vs. there vs. their), that's not language evolving. It's someone making a mistake and confusing one word for another.

[MonkeyClub]

I get your living language counter-argument, but I must say that I enjoyed reading it and taking it under consideration precisely because it was well formulated.

However, I’d say that just because something is “living”, that doesn’t mean that it’s also saved from deterioration.

I don’t think we can easily do away with grammar and syntax without detrimental effects to language and communication.