Q:  defend english, or embrace its evolution?

I'm gonna be a politician and say "bit of both"

I think it's good to strive for standards, but you also have to be willing to allow a language to grow and change.

Screw that. Oxford comma 4-EVA!

There should always be a standardized form of a language in which all speakers of said language can make themselves understood. Having said that, however, I don't think it's possible to resist linguistic change, regardless of whether or not it's desirable.

I thought this was awesome:

http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-07/st_essay

@Cocktails:  i'm no expert, but my understanding is that, at least for english, the idea of "correctness" arose in large part with the development of the dictionary, which was an attempt to codify the living language at the time (indeed, our modern usage rules rely to a huge extent on historical examples cited by dictionaries and usage manuals).  this codification is a necessary step in order to make a language universally understood and teachable, but it's also fundamentally impossible to complete since languages are evolving.

would anyone really claim that the dictionary and style manual people occupy much of a position of power in our society?  take a look at mr. nucular in the white house!

@le_sacre: sure, consistency of communication being the most important

without standards, our "common" language would diverge too much to the point where we might not be able to effectively communicate with one another, even though we claim to speak the same language.

@le_sac: the people who choose what went into the dictionary and which spellings where correct were based on what was considered "proper" which was decided by the ruling class. and yes, proper english is still considered a sign of class in america. look at how "ebonics" is treated, even though its understandable is seen as bad and wrong. and the way the southern accent is treated is similar.

@CMI: That's what I was getting at, really.

@le_sacre: I think that the only argument for preserving formal standards in a language, apart from sentimental reasons, is that there is value in learning rules, classifications and logical structures. I know that learning the rules of my native tongue made me a better writer and a clearer communicator. Thorough knowledge of English also prepared me to learn other languages. I found that, when I was teaching languages, many students had never had formal training in the rules and structure of English, and thus, they were less able to puzzle together another language's usages. More than once, I had to teach my students English grammar before we could consider the day's lesson, a process that frustrated all concerned.

However, your real question was if I think that English in its current form can be saved? Not in the slightest. Languages undergo natural and artificial evolutions (gradual phonetic changes vs. rapid leaps due to technological change, say), and there's no way to stop or reverse either.

i don't think preservation is equivalent to "saving" a language.  i'm just wondering out loud whether it's defensible/useful to be support such preservation.

i definitely agree with you on the utility of rules.  it makes me wonder if one small factor in english-speakers' average lack of foreign language competence might be that english has such screwy rules in the first place.

on a side note, i never really understood english grammar until i took latin.  then it all made perfect sense.

i've been dwelling on whether i'm a bad person for becoming instantly more attracted to people when they make proper use of a semicolon, nerd out over gerund/participle distinctions, or write, "all of a sudden...".  i feel a more comfortable about it since realizing that it's not about "propriety" so much as just showing that person cares a lot, or thinks a lot, about language.