Beowulf? Don't mind if I do.
Chaucer? I'd rather have a glass.
Is there a problem with our native tongue? Too right, chum. It's on the slide.
According to who/whom (subs please check): The compilers of the new Collins Concise Dictionary, who reckon we don't, like, talk proper any more; don't know any grammar; are clueless when it comes to apostrophe's; basically use clichés all the time (especially at the end of the day); tend to always split infinitives; and are adopting more and more Americanisms. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, criticism-wise.
What a nightmare! They also object to misplaced exaggeration.
Do they name the miscreants? You bet. John Prescott wins.
Nem con? Steady on - I don't think locking him up is the answer.
What was his offence? Linguistic GBH - as in "the sceptre of unemployment is now stalking the north-east".
He does have trouble with the syntax. And the withholding tax.
Who is making the criticisms? A distinguished panel of linguistic experts canvassed by Collins.
Such as? Janet Street-Porter, Bob Monkhouse, Jane Asher, Geoffrey Boycott, Jilly Cooper, Ann Widdecombe, Andrew Motion.
I thought you said distinguished. OK, I know Motion's had a bit of stick recently, but you can't knock the others. There's not much Boycs doesn't know about the subjunctive.
Or litotes: You'd never get that to stand up in an English court.
Ann Widdecombe writes: "I used to offer my civil servants incentives not to mix singulars and plurals, as in 'a pensioner collects their benefits'."
A pensioner writes: "What benefits?"
Dr Johnson writes: "I am not yet so lost in lexicography as to forget that words are the daughters of earth, and that things are the sons of heaven."
Do mention: Homer.
Don't mention: Homer Simpson.
But above all mention: The Collins Concise Dictionary.
