I'm sorry for my absence from the discussion. I've been too busy lately.

The misuses of "nice" and "silly" have been established in the language for so long that to try to revive and reinstate the original meanings now would be somewhat quixotic.

Even the misuses of "disinterested" and "uninterested" have, more than likely, taken root in the language so deeply that to try to remove them would be almost impossible, and certainly much more painful than anyone would be willing to bear. The only thing that might reinstate their original meanings, as the only meanings, would be an evolutionary selection process, so to speak, that would favor the original meanings over the new meanings.

I think our discussion has diverged into two areas: 1) prescriptivism as applied to the spoken language, and 2) prescriptivism as applied to the written language. Mea culpa! I should have been more specific and written, “People would utter and write whatever they chose…” I intended the comments I made above to be directed toward the written language, and not the spoken language. Nevertheless, I submit that prescriptivism as applied to the spoken language requires a different perspective than it would when applied to the written language.

To try to apply prescriptivism to something as dynamic as the common, everyday conversation, riddled with interruptions of thought, accidental, incorrect choice of words, sudden changes in topic, interruptions in general, etc., would be frustrating, to say the least, and no doubt, sans some sort of jack-booted grammar police, futile. Certainly, it would annoy people, as jheem wrote.

Faldage’s analogy of the shoes seems to apply primarily to the spoken language. Consider that one who would not apply for an oil rig job wearing Guccis would probably not apply the same reasoning to the written application, i.e. he or she would not intentionally down play, or dress down, if you will, his or her use of the written language by choosing to misuse words and grammar.

Regarding the correction of grammar (and, of course, I mean as applied to the written language): there are obviously many who believe there to be a need to use correct grammar, or there wouldn’t be so many English classes focusing, in whole or in part, on grammar throughout every level of education. Just because a teacher can sift through a student’s writing and arrive at a meaning doesn’t mean that the teacher shouldn’t point out the student’s mistakes. Although I have no experience with editors, I can nevertheless imagine an editor pointing out a writer’s incorrect grammar, in spite of the fact that the editor grasped the writer’s meaning. (Should the writer require a reader to wade through poor grammar, misuse of words, or misspellings in order to arrive at the writer’s meaning?) There is some use in pointing out grammatical mistakes.

toOrulz thee abb.anndonne vigINht woodk-osS ,

I do not suggest that language is learned through dictionaries. Nevertheless, I still contend that they are the authoritative representatives of the words of our language. When one wants the authoritative answer on how to spell or use a word, or to find the word's part of speech, or to learn the word's etymology, one consults a dictionary, not a comic book, not a cereal box, not a mail carrier, not a bank teller, not a crystal ball, but a dictionary. Granted: there are many words in dictionaries that began as misuses. But, that doesn’t necessarily make their use grammatically desirable.

I don’t think I expressed myself one way or the other on this point, but to be clear, I am not suggesting that this forum adhere solely to formal writing, or for that matter, have any rules about formal writing at all. It’s obvious that everyone here has a strong grasp of the rules of English, and in the discussions of the language, can apply, bend, or abandon those rules as they choose. My thoughts on prescriptivism apply primarily to those who do not think about words or the language at all, and perpetuate misuses until they become so popular in the language that some dictionaries include them, giving their continued misuse the aegis of authority.

A final thought: I agree that there are many archaic and unnecessary rules in our language. The split infinitive is a very good case in point. Perhaps it’s time for those rules to be formally reassessed. Certainly they are being informally reassessed.