I don't think impurity is what I'm complaining about. What I preferred was when most of the people defining written English by their usage were more of an elite. It's not about who those people were or how exactly they used language, just that they read a broad variety of published material and not just contemporary communications.
>Europeans failed to keep Latin relevant. Indians failed to keep Sanskrit relevant.
They kept the languages for thousands of years. Ancient Egyptians kept hieroglyphics going even longer. We are able to maintain languages without any problems, if we just choose to.
That being said... if I'm reading this correctly, its specific to communication in non-business settings, where I don't really care much about whats "proper".
This is a losing battle, btw. Every society seems to struggle with the problem of keeping purity in language and all of them seem to have failed in that effort. Europeans failed to keep Latin relevant. Indians failed to keep Sanskrit relevant. The common language that is well understood by a majority will always win. And trying to keep it pure by force, just makes it die in relevance.
Which is why, the fact that Oxford English Dictionary keeps adding new words to the English dictionary is one of the best indicators of the resilience of the English language.