"I don't really see how capitalization and the replacement of a single missing letter counts as being a proponent of the future of the English language. To be honest, there's a big difference between an orthographical pedant and being a 'protector of language'. Bangkok is, to some extent, an orthographically opaque word, and the rest of your complaints would have absolutely no discernible presence in speech, and unlike, say, a missing apostrophe when one wants to denote ownership, the faults would not cause any difference in meaning.
Also, there's no way to protect the 'future' of a language. A language changes and changes, that's its nature, and although you might disagree with the changes, they're just as natural as whatever rule you come up with. In effect, if a large enough number of people start spelling a certain word a certain way, or start altering the grammar of language in a certain, that becomes the right way of doing it. I know on boards like this, and with written language in general, we need an objective point of reference, but in reality, language is not very objective at all. So don't try and protect the future of the English language. IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE, we'd be conjugating regular verbs in the present tense other than the 3rd person singular, I'm sure."
I believe you meant "If that WERE possible" bitchy, I mean twitchy.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
Updated On: 12/30/08 at 04:55 PM
