<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: You Might Be Sick, But You&#8217;re Not Nauseous</title>
	<atom:link href="http://languageandgrammar.com/2008/03/18/you-might-be-sick-but-youre-not-nauseous/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://languageandgrammar.com/2008/03/18/you-might-be-sick-but-youre-not-nauseous/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:34:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karen Ferrell-White</title>
		<link>http://languageandgrammar.com/2008/03/18/you-might-be-sick-but-youre-not-nauseous/#comment-680</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karen Ferrell-White]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:55:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://languageandgrammar.wordpress.com/?p=87#comment-680</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hallelujah for an intelligent, cohesive, persuasive evaluation of this usage, which is one about which a friend of mine (also an English teacher) and I have just had rather a set-to.  I fully agree with you; he seems to believe that we must simply acquiesce to the common herd&#039;s usage, despite the logic.  Thanks!!!

Reply from Sherry: You&#039;ve hit on a very important point: Many people believe that we should, as you put it, acquiesce to the common herd&#039;s usage despite the logic. This approach, in too many instances, seems to be reflected in modern dictionaries. The thinking seems to be that if it&#039;s used often enough, even if it&#039;s a true grammar error, then we should no longer call it an error but, rather, an alternative, standard meaning or usage. While language does, of course, evolve, there should be a reason and a logic for the evolution, which, for me, never includes standardizing a mistake.

Thanks for writing!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hallelujah for an intelligent, cohesive, persuasive evaluation of this usage, which is one about which a friend of mine (also an English teacher) and I have just had rather a set-to.  I fully agree with you; he seems to believe that we must simply acquiesce to the common herd&#8217;s usage, despite the logic.  Thanks!!!</p>
<p>Reply from Sherry: You&#8217;ve hit on a very important point: Many people believe that we should, as you put it, acquiesce to the common herd&#8217;s usage despite the logic. This approach, in too many instances, seems to be reflected in modern dictionaries. The thinking seems to be that if it&#8217;s used often enough, even if it&#8217;s a true grammar error, then we should no longer call it an error but, rather, an alternative, standard meaning or usage. While language does, of course, evolve, there should be a reason and a logic for the evolution, which, for me, never includes standardizing a mistake.</p>
<p>Thanks for writing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

