> It's absurd that English speakers are so tolerant of incorrect usage.

Or, one can just as easily say it's absurd that certain pedants are so intolerant of evolving usage.

Language does not proceed by logical deduction. It is shared convention, no more and no less. If a majority of people think a new usage is right, then that's just what the usage is.

When you say "incorrect usage", incorrect according to whom? You? A minority? Why should anyone else take that seriously when they're already communicating just fine?

There was a fascinating article in the Economist many years ago about the worldwide predominance of English. (This was pre ubiquitous internet.)

The reasons given were 1) British colonialism 2) Post WWII American hegemony 3) No one cares if you speak it poorly.

Ever read pidgin? Mutually intelligible, really neat.

https://www.bbc.com/pidgin

>3) No one cares if you speak it poorly

And this is maybe just a slightly more charitable rephrasing of #3 but very open to loan words and alternative ways of phrasing things.

"Laugh or assume you're a robot" isn't quite right, though; skipping the "ne" is common in informal contexts.

> If you left out either of "ne" or "pas" in such a construction, people would either laugh, or assume you were some kind of primitive language generator.

Isn't it common to drop the "ne" in colloquial speech?

“Common” is an understatement. It’s practically universal. You will sound weird if you systematically include “ne”, like you learned to speak by reading books and have never communicated with a real person.

Or they'll assume you're a native speaker familiar with a given dialect or specific idioms. Dropping "ne" is common in spoken French many places to the point that to many speakers you'll sound stilted and/or old if you included it - the first time I was told (as a teenager) I sounded "old" for using ne..pas was around 30 years ago.

The son in the family I stayed with on on a school trip back then found it hilarious how often I used "ne ... pas" instead of just "pas", e.g. "c'est pas grave" [1] rather than "ce n'est pas grave".

[1] Here's a song titled "c'est pas grave" by French group Columbine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yyjPxvNLGk

The reverse is possible too: there are some verbs (at least savoir and pouvoir, not sure if there are others) that can be negated just with ne, without pas, although it sounds stilted and old-fashioned. You are unlikely to encounter this in the real world but it does show up in books. For example Dumbledore in the French translation of Harry Potter says “je ne puis” and “je ne sais” a fair amount.

I'm not a native speaker, but I've read that "je ne [verb]" was the standard way to negate in Old French, cognate with e.g. "yo no [verb]" in Spanish. The "pas" was originally only added for emphasis, but over time it became obligatory and the "ne" became less important.

It's almost as if, contrary to what the person three comments up says, languages evolve over time...

> If you left out either of "ne" or "pas" in such a construction, people would either laugh, or assume you were some kind of primitive language generator.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Please learn French before spouting off so confidently about it.