you're claiming there's a line in the sand somewhere.
The only solid line I drew was that flat-out anarchy is a step too far. You talk about governing bodies and "language governments," even though I endorsed the current "middle way" paradigm of house styles (like the Chicago Manual of Style, the Associated Press house style, the Times of London style) as offering the best of both worlds. There is no dichotomy of a total free for all versus having a "language government."
When writing something for a public or semi-public audience, I do think there should be a formal specification for English so that you can KNOW deterministically if your composition is correct.
See, I disagree with that. Being with the gamut of what is considered professional, written English is good enough. US English and British English have differing formal standards (and even those aren't fixed by any one group), yet are easily read by both types of reader. Having multiple standards within an overall gamut of professional English is the current system and people adhere to whatever house style they wish (or, more commonly, mix together different notions of what they consider to be good).
Working within a gamut offers both structure and flexibility without resorting to "language governments" or language anarchy.
I think many of these arguments are just about the confusion between an in-the-system and out-of-the-system perspective.
Suppose I say "Joe Bloggs shouldn't be President". You could reply "Who are you to say that? We have a democratic system, and if the people choose to elect Joe Bloggs as President then Joe Bloggs should be President". And of course you'd be right in that I don't have the right to stand outside the system and declare that Joe Bloggs shouldn't be President. But if we zoom in on the democratic system then you'll see all sorts of people standing around arguing about whether Joe Bloggs should or should not be President, which is probably the level on which I meant to make my pronouncement in the first place.
Similarly, if I say "login" isn't a verb, it's not because I'm setting myself up as the independent arbiter of what is and isn't a word, I'm merely expressing a ground-level preference within-the-system preference that it should not be considered a verb (due, in this case, to inconsistency and the impossibility of sensibly putting it into past tense), and words come and go due to just such sorts of ground-level arguments.
So, with that out of the way, I agree that "login" shouldn't be a verb. Also, "panini" is plural and the singular is "panino".
You mention "what is considered professional" in written English. The problem is, it's impossible to be completely confident that your written piece is correct because there is no formal definition of "correct." Take for example gender-neutral third-person pronouns. We don't really have one in English. You can say "he or she" or "the user" or even the dubious "they," but none really sound "correct." If there were a formal grammar for English, you could just use "they" (assuming that is what the grammar specifies) and no one could really argue that you're incorrect or using "bad style." There are local style guides, and I think they're a good thing, but aren't most of them not public and free? I know MLA isn't free, which is ironic since universities often require you conform to MLA style (also, MLA isn't a very formal grammar when it comes to citing sources).
When I say "language government," I don't necessarily mean there would be any relation with an actual government. In fact, any free and amendable formal grammar/style guide would qualify as "language government."
When I say "language government," I don't necessarily mean there would be any relation with an actual government. In fact, any free and amendable formal grammar/style guide would qualify as "language government."
I think we have reached an intellectual compromise we can both agree on :-) I think an open style guide backed by a respected foundation and esteemed board (a la the Creative Commons organization) would be an excellent idea.
You are right about the slightly closed nature of style guides. I'm a big fan of the Chicago Manual of Style but it's not free, and nor is the fine AP Stylebook (they even charge $20 or something for their iPhone app..)
The only solid line I drew was that flat-out anarchy is a step too far. You talk about governing bodies and "language governments," even though I endorsed the current "middle way" paradigm of house styles (like the Chicago Manual of Style, the Associated Press house style, the Times of London style) as offering the best of both worlds. There is no dichotomy of a total free for all versus having a "language government."
When writing something for a public or semi-public audience, I do think there should be a formal specification for English so that you can KNOW deterministically if your composition is correct.
See, I disagree with that. Being with the gamut of what is considered professional, written English is good enough. US English and British English have differing formal standards (and even those aren't fixed by any one group), yet are easily read by both types of reader. Having multiple standards within an overall gamut of professional English is the current system and people adhere to whatever house style they wish (or, more commonly, mix together different notions of what they consider to be good).
Working within a gamut offers both structure and flexibility without resorting to "language governments" or language anarchy.