> Like it or not, some attempts at communication will be perceived as correct, and some will not. "Correct" is not the operative term. The only criterion is wh

> Like it or not, some attempts at communication will be perceived as correct, and some will not. "Correct" is not the operative term. The only criterion is whether the speaker achieves his objective. If he intends to communicate clearly, that's one criterion. If he intends to bamboozle his listener(s), that's another. The is no "correct" in language, any more than there is in evolution. And natural evolution is the closest parallel to language. Take the word "sheriff" as an example. Am I right to say "sheriff", with that spelling and pronunciation, to mean the primary legal authority in a U.S. county? Perhaps. Am I right to say "scirgerefa", and then later, "shire reeve", meaning an officer of the king responsible for maintaining order in each shire, collecting taxes and so forth? Yes again. What's the difference? Time. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sheriff http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sheriff How about "decimated"? Does it mean substantially destroyed, or does it mean reduced by a tenth? That depends ... on time and place. If you wanted to make language "correct", to meet an arbitrary standard, you would have to fight against the natural evolution of language. Lexicographers don't want to do that, and speakers don't either. Why would you?