"The one sensible criticism that can be made about the intensive use of literally is that it can often lead to confusing or silly-sounding results. In this case, the answer is simple: Don't write silly-soundingly. Some usage books even bother to make this point about literally. Then again, most usage advice could be reduced to one simple instruction: 'Be clear.' But that would be the end of a publishing category."

And this, I believe, is why we need more, not fewer, prescriptivists. As I've said before, communication is just that: getting one's point across. One cannot communicate effectively without having rules of language. And part of really good communication is knowing when to break the rules for some positive impact on the imparting of information. But in order to know when to break the rule one must know the rule in the first place.

And this, I believe, is where pure descriptivism has shortcomings. It says, "We've seen this in print," or "We've heard people talking like this." But unless a prescriptivist comes along and says, "This is the rule," then most people will not know whether or not they are following the golden rule of communication: "Be clear."

It reminds me of one of Freedman's famous quips: "In economics, there is only one rule: TINSTAAFL.* All the rest is corollary."

*There is no such thing as a free lunch."

TEd