Mixed messages in pedantry

The Times today has a news article and a leader about the Queen's English Society's proposal for an academy to police the English language and guard against its decline. The messages seem a little mixed, though. On the one hand they have given the leader the sub-headline "An academy for the English language is a bad idea" and  describe the suggestion as "forlorn". They point out that an academy would have no actual effect on how people use the language, just as French pedants' criticism has not stopped anyone there using le weekend. But at the same time they suggest that the loss of the "original meaning" of beg the question or protest one's innocence* has been for no good reason

The news item is a little more factual, restricting itself, by and large, to reporting the comments from members of the aforementioned society. These comments also have something of a schizophrenic sound about them. They suggest that "[Language academies]...do not stop the language changing...but they do provide a measure of linguistic discipline and try to retain valid and useful changes new terms while rejecting passing fads."  They say we "desperately need" such a body because of "the tragic failure" of our education system.

The brains behind the formation of this academy is Martin Estinel who, if the article is accurate, has the usual plethora of personal language foibles. He doesn't like "gay" in its modern sense but accepts that the dictionaries include it. (Good of him to accept such an obviously verifiable fact!). He doesn't like misplaced sentence stress (although it isn't clear what he means by that - perhaps he's objecting to rising intonations in non-questions although that isn't actually a matter of stress at all.) He objects to teenagers using "like", the confusion of "last" and "past", and the tendency to use "if I was" instead of "if I were".

Rhea Williams, described as chairman of the Society, is also quoted. She objects to "we was" instead of "we were" and if she was (sic) talking about in formal writing, I'd agree, but she says "for example, you hear, 'we was' a lot." Indeed you do, and have done for centuries, it depends where you live. It's by far the commonest spoken form in my locality. She also says that there are "mispronunciations and misunderstandings galore" but fails to suggest any. That's probably because there are far fewer than she thinks. Even if people do all the things that she, and so many others, object to, understanding still usually occurs.

The case against an academy is bizarrely presented by Jack Bovill, chairman of the Spelling Society. And I mean "bizarrely presented" as it ignores the issue of an academy more or less entirely to promote his society's view that "awareness of irregularities in spelling" needs to be raised and that while language adapts we should "do it deliberately" rather than "leave it to chance".

My view is that if they want their academy, let them have it. Give them a hall to hold their meetings in. Let them grumble and moan about the declining standards and the end of civilization as we know it. It won't make a blind bit of difference to how real people speak or write.


(* Incidentally I'm not sure what "original meaning" they are talking about in the case of "protest one's innocence".)