Because I was an English teacher, people often assume that I am a staunch defender of 'correct' English, although the denotation of that adjective varies with each person's understanding, or misunderstanding, of what 'correctness' means. No doubt what I say, write or comment on confirms one person's view that I am a reliable linguistic ally, another's that I am an arch-pedant, and yet another's that I am far too lax and permissive. At various times I probably justify all these opinions, which neither surprises nor bothers me, for as a nation we are very good at being linguistically judg(e)mental. Almost eight years into retirement, and with both my children approaching middle age, I no longer spend much time with teenagers, and so am less aware of linguistic changes among young people than I was, although my three grandsons are a new and increasingly interesting source of language use. I suppose I have a range of responses to the language I hear or read. They may be merely interesting (the use of random to mean unusual or bizarre), slightly surprising (the use of toxic to cover anything that is harmful or dangerous), mildly amusing (the use of rising intonation at the end of a statement that then sounds like a question), irritating (the thing is, is that I never ever want to go there again), or incorrect, such as the failure to make subject and verb agree, although Arsenal are at home is perfectly all right, I would argue. I still find it odd to see or hear they used instead of he or she when the gender is not specified, but I know there is sound historic precedent for this, and it does not bother me, although I prefer to avoid it myself. It must be difficult to write dialogue for a play or film set in a previous age, and obviously compromises have to be made if the period is, say, the late sixteenth century, but I sometimes think that in BBC costume dramas the period detail of clothing and decor is given more careful thought than the language. In a recent production set in the late Victorian era one character told another Get over yourself, another said that No way would she do something or other, and a third asked Aren't you just doing that to feel good about yourself? It must be difficult to get the balance right, admittedly. In case any putative reader has received the impression by this stage that my default linguistic mode is pedantic - perish the thought! (subjunctive) - , perhaps I should end this post by making it clear that I welcome and enjoy many of the developments in language use. I do not fear for the language when texts include forms such as CUL8R. The use of the form texed as the past tense of to text is interesting, though, possibly because we often don't pronounce final consonants, inni' ? The fuss about 'verbing', using nouns as verbs, as in medalled,
ignores a practice centuries old, whether we like it or not. Finally, those who talk of a golden age when the English language was used properly, with correct grammar and aptly chosen vocabulary, are deluded. If I look at early editions (1920s) of my old school magazine, The Penwithian, it is obvious that we need not be despondent about the state of our language, about which it would be unwise to generalise too harshly.