I accept his argument but it is tilting at windmills. Is it valid to engage in mass erasure of a historical record to suit outmoded ideas? The issue here is that an existing word has acquired a new usage and the old guard isn't happy with the change. There was once much grousing about youths failing to properly conjugate second person pronouns. Now it's anachronistic to use them.

"You" is still around so we do still have second-person pronouns.

Used "incorrectly" in place of thee, thou, and thy in familiar speech.

Yes, I know, but we are not without second-person pronouns at all; we just no longer have separate singular and plural ones.

Y’all is coming so you best be ready for the second person plural.

If it became common usage, yes? If most people make "a habitual mistake", then by whose authority of it a mistake?

> Sure, but why should people who can’t use the language properly (*) be an uncontested force in that evolution?

How do you think English and all other modern languages formed? If some authority were able to stop people who can't use a language properly from evolving it, the people on the British isles would be speaking Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Latin, etc. today, not English.

The most fun is reading threads about cars or racing, where people say "break" when they mean "brake".

Should we accept "break" to mean deceleration, or as a noun for the equipment to slow down a vehicle, then?

This is a completely different example, as this is only a spelling mistake/difference. When these people write "break", they clearly mean "brake". They are not adding the meaning of decelerate to the verb that means to tear into pieces.

The evolution of writing is separate from the evolution of language in general. Read and read are still different words even if they are written the same. If the spelling "brake" for declaration fell out of favor and "break" was used for both words, this wouldn't change anything about the English language. The two are already homophones, and they would be far from the only homographs in English.

I actually think it’s close enough that they could be mistaking the root meaning; think of ‘break’ in terms of elemental forces - a windbreak, a breakwater, a firebreak - think of how ‘taking a break’ is slowing down, is decelerating, is ‘braking.’ Breaks slow the movement of energy through a medium. Brake is a pretty easy mistake to make if you’re not sure which is which.

We can rather tidily solve this by saying orthography and writing systems are artificial methods of representing the spoken language which have prescriptive rules. English spelling certainly shows that it's not difficult to retain many spellings that no longer accurately reflect the pronunciation of the word, if they ever did in the first place. On the other hand, preventing grammatical changes or semantic shift in words over time is impossible. Nobody's ever managed that (perhaps we could find some exceptions among languages that are used in religious or ceremonial contexts primarily and not as someone's regular means of communication).

> if they ever did in the first place

It's a distinctive feature of English that spelling and pronunciation are only loosely related. It's because of the history of the language; and of the country, for that matter.

I feel that this is less extreme than using "literally" to mean "figuratively".

Several words in English have multiple separate meanings.

> people say "break" when they mean "brake".

You were still able to understand what they meant.

Rather, instead of "should we accept", I'd ask "can people be expected to understand".

I'd think a divergence in language is more severe if it disrupts communication.

No one uses "literally" to mean "figuratively".

When some say "I laughed so loud I literally rolled on the floor", they do not, in any way, mean "I laughed so loud I figuratively rolled on the floor". Instead they mean "I laughed so loud, that it was almost like I was literally rolling on the floor". It is merely used as a generic augmentative: the phrase has the same basic meaning with or without "literally", but it gains more emphasis with it. The fact that it happens to apply to a figurative usage of "rolling on the floor" is mostly a coincidence.

Its just like "very" (which is a contraction of "verily", truly) has been adopted as an augmentative and lost its original meaning of "truly".

But no one uses ‘using “literally” to mean “figuratively”’ to literally mean ‘using “literally” to mean “figuratively”’, either. Instead they mean ‘using “literally” in the context of a figurative usage’, as you point out—the censure of which is warranted by its being a lazy cliché. The augmentation is not generic; the coincidence is feigned in the service of irony.

Lots of people do use literally, which manifests by them complaining that it is becoming a self-antonym or that it's losing its meaning. Is it a lazy cliche? Probably. Is that a reason to complain it's hurting the word literally? Obviously not.

I'm not sure if you'll win or loose that argument.

If the majority of English speakers start using them as synonyms, then yes, we should accept it as the result of natural evolution of the language.

Thing is, it's going to happen either way. The actual choices are being "the old man yelling at clouds" vs moving on.

the meaning of "begs the question" has changed in this way. it's just about always used "incorrectly" now.

> If we can’t say that “comprised of” is objectively wrong, then what _can_ we say about English?

I haven't read John McWhorter's "Words on the Move", but he addresses this question there, and this review has a summary:

https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2017/06/15/review-john-mcwho...

- Isolated cases of 'incorrect' usage can be considered 'incorrect'.

- Widespread usage that's different would be better described as a shift in language.

You would think it would be relatively uncontroversial to anyone who's read an older text full of "thous" and "yes" that sometimes the way English is used changes over time.

> That said, I think McWhorter's observation that much fulminating over language usage is sublimated classism is an astute one.

It's fine in general, but it can't really apply here. This is some people imagining a difference that doesn't exist and then enforcing it on other people whose identities are unknown. Social class has no role to play in the process, except that this is the same behavior that, in other contexts, hardens class boundaries.

In other words, my analysis would be that people are motivated to engage in this behavior without knowing why, and the ultimate reason is to enforce class boundaries, but here they're just going with their instincts even though there isn't a class boundary to enforce.

I don't agree. They may not be conscious of it but the target here is people who didn't have the "right" education letting them know to avoid this phrase.

> why should people who can’t use the language properly () be an uncontested force in that evolution?

For the same reason people with different opinions should still be allowed to vote. Also it's not an uncontested force, you are free to vote for the "correct" use of the language by actively using it yourself in that way and trying to convince others. Just like everyone else.

In 200 years people might learn "should of" in school, just like we today call that one symbol "ampersand". And they will find some new word to complain about, just like probably every generation since at least middle english did because it was all the "correct" version of the language to them.

Do you take or make a decision ;)

> () If we can’t say that “comprised of” is objectively wrong, then what _can_ we say about English?

Well, a lot of things. You can't say "the baby seems drinking the milk." Even though it's perfectly comprehensible, every English speaker will agree that "the baby seems to be drinking the milk" is the correct way to express this. Avoiding "comprised of" is a "rule" where we can't identify any dialect where everyone agrees on it.

What about it is objectively wrong? Semantics? There are plenty of words that contain 'of' in the definition, yet are used with of "Because of" being the primary example, and afaict is allowed on Wikipedia. Grammar? "Possessed of" "descended from" etc. This is also very common.

‘Of’ is not itself the problem. The problem is that the direction has flipped from the original usage. It’s like if instead of “my book collection includes all the classics of Russian literature” people started saying “my book collection is included by all the classics of Russian literature”