On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 07:28:01PM -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
As I said before, even dirty perscriptivists (viz Perrin, C.) always come to accept language change _eventually_.
Otherwise, the text of your message would have read like something more along the lines of "Spec þ?? fore þin sylf!" (Stephen Forrest may correct me here in the case that ic may've spake me here in a wrong-like manner yar)
In point of fact, the examples of archaic speech you provide owe their obsolescence more to an imposition of standards than to a modification of language by accepting corruptions. The fact that there is only one "correct" spelling for "self" is, in fact, more a prescriptivist-friendly alteration of language than descriptivist. Semantic, syntactic, and even vocal standards have been adopted as "correct" over the years in addition to descriptive drift over the years. In any case, barring the development of an immortality treatment, I doubt I'll outlive a time when "reknowned" is considered technically incorrect by a substantial demographic.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]