[llllllllllll]

The rules you've consciously learned about language constitute a tiny fraction of the rules that govern our use of language. Many of them ("don't split infinitives!", "no prepositions at the end of a sentence!") fail to be descriptive.

Not that it matters, but "biweekly", "biannually", and "bimonthly" have always only had a single meaning for me. I've heard the debate about them, but I don't think I've ever actually seen them used to mean "once every two weeks/months/years".

[mrxd]

Drawing grammar rules for English from Latin might be a bad idea, but it tells us nothing about the value of rules as such.

Every dictionary gives multiple definitions of biweekly, etc. To professional linguists, this is an example of the wonderful flowering of the diversity of language or whatever and is probably much more exciting to study. Everyone else just cares about when to pick up their paycheck.

[llllllllllll]

My point is that if you think the rules we learn in school about language are the same rules that allow us to communicate and understand each other, you're failing to realize the massive complexity of language.

As for those "bi-" words, there seems to be more consistency with "biannually", than with "biweekly", or "bimonthly". Oxford only gives a single definition for "biannual":

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/biannua...

As a professional linguist, there are millions of questions about language I find more exciting than this :)

[mrxd]

I've yet to hear an argument for why the needs of professional linguists should take priority. If you don't standardize the language, then it evolves to become unpredictable, inconsistent and impossible for non-natives to learn without years of immersion.

The language you prefer is also exclusionary. Imagine if Ivy League universities used a complex idiosyncratic dialect that was opaque to anyone who didn't grow up in an upper-middle class New England suburb. It would create a barrier for outsiders to gain access to those colleges, and a lot of other elite institutions. Standardizing and simplifying rules eliminates that barrier, allows the language to be taught to people who would be otherwise marked as outsiders.

[llllllllllll]

I am not following much of what you're saying. I think you are deeply out of touch with what it is that linguists actually do -- this has nothing to do with the "needs of professional linguists".

If you don't standardize the language, then it evolves to become unpredictable, inconsistent and impossible for non-natives to learn without years of immersion.

Imagine if Ivy League universities used a complex idiosyncratic dialect

English and all other languages on the planet are idiosyncratic, inconsistent, and impossible to learn without years of immersion. You can try to prescribe away some surface irregularity ("the singular of data is datum!"), with maybe limited success among a small network of people, but that won't even make a dent in the overall complexity of a language.