|
I totally agree with you, l_t.
My one thought to the contrary, though, comes from my suspicion that what is considered "traditional" forms of many languages today have already greatly changed since centuries ago; and if they've already greatly changed, why cast them in stone now?
In spite of the fact that languages have a life of their own and can evolve and change over time, I'm in favor of adhering to traditional language and grammar in order to preserve a sense of history...sort of like maintaining old historic buildings rather than tearing them down and building a strip mall. I can see allowing common usage to change and become widely acceptable, but keep the formal details intact.
I wonder if this type of thing happens in spite of our objections because when the "least common dunces" grow up and become politicians, they pass these laws so their stupid progeny have an easier time with life...where's your sense of history and tradition!!???
|