"The problem with English as a "living language" is that if enough people say or write something incorrectly, it eventually becomes acceptable. That's akin to saying that if enough people insist that two plus two equals five, then it does."
Hum....
OK, you don't realize the world of hurt you've just opened up for yourself.
Let's take a look for a second at the concept of "incorrect."
Just who determines that a particular usage is correct or incorrect?
Is there, somewhere in the ether, an all-knowing entity who handed down the rules of English grammar on tables of stone?
(I AM THE CHIEF THY COPY EDITOR, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER COPY EDITORS BEFORE ME...)
Why do you suppose that we speak, and write, the language that we do now, instead of, say, the English of Bede, Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Dickens?
Is it because a usage panel, sitting in a Star Chamber, following the dictates of the Chief Copy Editor, issued precise ammendments to the formal language laws, which were then posted throughout the realm?
(Henceforth, be it know, that the following changes, as approved by the Chief Copy Editor, shall be followed forthwith:
1. Access is now approved as a verb form as well as a noun.
2. Nice no longer means wanton, dissolute, ignorant. Henceforth nice shall mean agreeable, pleasant, pleasing, well-bred...
3. An ammended version of "The Rules of the Great Vowel Shift" will be issued in two weeks. Please note that only the Scots are to continue speaking as the Scots, all other English speakers will follow the rules as laid out...)
The concept you have to get around is that language is a finite thing -- that once the "rules" are laid out, they are immutable. The attempt to draw a comparison to simple mathematics is a time honored one, but ultimately fruitless. A more fitting comparison would be that of English to quantum mechanics. Heisenberg laid out the basic structural rules of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. And they haven't stopped changing since.
(Two negatives in a sentence makes the sentence affirmative, i. e., I haven't got no bananas actually means yes, I have bananas...)
Language isn't mathematical. It's contextual, environmental, spatial, and continually flowing.
A good example?
Media. From the Latin Medius.
Do you know when it entered the English language? Around 1593, or about 1,100 years after the last of the Romans left Britain, home of the English language.
If the language hadn't evolved, media would still mean ONLY the one in the middle, it never would have made the temporal leap from that vague definition to the one most commonly used today, the press corps.
Every day you, I, and the other members of this board, and all English speakers worldwide, for that matter, use a language that has evolved exactly as you don't want it to.
If that were truly the case, and languages didn't evolve through common usage, media woudn't even be in the language, and we'd all be speaking a polyglottal mixture of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, French, Germanic, and Brythonic languages with no hope of ever achieving a unified, homogenous "English" language.
"English is not a democracy."
And, just how do you figure that?
If it's not a democracy, then it must be dictatorship, strictly controlled in its forms and function by, why by the Chief Copy Editor!
Language, ANY language, by its very nature is the most democratic form of expression.
A simple example...
Spanish.
In Castillian Spanish, there are 6 forms used when conjugating a verb, 3 singular, 3 plural, the same as English.
But in new world Spanish, there are only 5 commonly used. One, the vosotros form, has largely disappeared.
Why?
If I remember my Spanish lessons correctly, it's because the vosotros form is mainly used when addressing those of the noble class.
With so few nobles in the new world, it was really a moot point, and a useless form. Whom are you going to address in that matter? Jose, the ditch digger? Esmeralda, the goat herder?
That's a perfect example of the democratic nature of languages in action.
. Those of us who enjoy the language need to take care to avoid editorial paranoia, or the "wounded bull" syndrome (heads lowered, standing in a circle facing outwards). The language is not ours to guard and protect. For those of you over, say, 40 -- forget it! It's the young people who will drive the language -- we've had our time.