so, what makes the spelling of a word "correct", i mean, one guy just decided that, that's just was one person's veiw of his own mind of what it should be, and why can't other people do that? nothing makes it right or wrong, words are just words, if you can read it, then it doesn't matter how you spell it.
Wrong
You should qualify that.
The thing is, the correct way exists because that's what our convention is. The words have developed over time to where they are now. They're not merely invented, and they weren't always as they are. Yes, they'll change - language does develop. We no longer use thee, thou, etc. in the way we used to, and the word 'wise' has lost one meaning as 'way' (though we retain it in such words as 'otherwise'.) The thing is, we can spell differently than the norm. One can say existance. But that doesn't make it RIGHT. I tried to defend it based on its history, but most other mis-spelled words aren't so defensible. Mostly, it is simply wrong to spell it like that - not to say that you can't, but it's a linguistic crime. What makes the norm, you ask? Not because some guy decided it, but because English speakers as a whole have decided it. I'd suggest you look at the Oxford English Dicionary - not the normal one you see in school, but the full one. That's where I checked on the history of 'existence', and found its root in Latin (though, I suppose, any other Oxford English Dictionary will tell you this, too, the full one gives you lists of its prior usage in different forms.) What you'll see is no one decision or standard, but that the norm is dicated by the current state of things. Basically, what makes a spelling correct is that the OED says it does. The other day, trying to translate a word that is basically the adverb of Centaur, I wrote Centaurishly. Is this correct? No. I made the word up. Poetic license. But it's not correct, and I can't claim it for that.
Ummm... some help here? I can't quite make a convincing statement at this point.
Somewhere in between grammatical fascism and linguistic anarchy is a good rule for how to spell things. I think you're on the right track, Daniel--and you too, ZeaLitY--but I would make a different argument to reach a similar conclusion. Popular consensus ultimately does have the final say in the actual usage of a language. But it never has authority over how well the language works. It is a case of desire subverting the truth, and so I don't want to rely upon popular consensus to argue any rules for English usage. Instead, my technique--which is far from an absolute--is to proceed with as much loyalty to the existing laws of grammar as possible, but also to not fear amending the language when a higher degree of communication is at stake. I base this upon English's dazzling potency; I don't want to mess with a good thing without cause. English is smarter at English than most of us; I prefer to focus upon my study of the language, as its pupil, rather than attempt to control it arbitrarily...and I'm a master. What about all the neophytes and numbskulls who think they can wield the Sword of English without appreciating its power? They'll blunt their ideas' edge, at best--and disembowel themselves at worst. This "Anglish" tongue of ours is sophisticated enough that common usage tends to dilute the language's efficacy as a mode of communication. One need only look online at the IM ravings of mad-fingered fools to see that. Grammatical strictures and usage rules are essential for preserving the high degree of information potency inherent to modern English. That is why usage experts--typically in the employ of dictionary companies--are so important. Their consensus, as opposed to popular consensus, is better informed.
Whatever power the language must answer to, at the heart of any language is the utility of communication and the facility to formulate a superior thought. These are the only purposes rightfully served by adherence to the existing rules or defiance against them. If you find yourself wanting to break the laws of grammar, you need only ask yourself whether doing so will further your ability to formulate or communicate ideas. This begs the question: Do you understand English well enough to venture a reply? I'm looking at you, dan_death.
My preference is that we adhere to English wherever possible, because for most of us it already works beyond our ability to confound it. English is a social enterprise, and a community venture. How we use it affects others. Therefore we cannot arbitrarily impose our own preferences upon the language, because this hurts other people's comprehension of our message. Sometimes these hurts are the mark of growing pains, but more often they are plainly a barrier to communication--as evidenced, for example, by the recent news article out of Britain about office workers who are disdainful of and intimidated by their managers' use of Dilbertesque corporate-speak.
So...here at the end of the story is the lesson for dan_death and those of like mind: Obey the laws of grammar. Aspire to understand them fully. Do not bend or break them unless it is in the service of language--which is essentially the formulation and communication of ideas. Never forget that language is our most important tool as a species, and is diminished at our own expense when we fashion it into a mechanism of our personal convenience and sloth.
