I suspect that "went" was originally the past tense
of "wend" as in "Wend your ways."

I think it is due to overcorrection. I think it comes
from a mistaken notion that Objective case is al-
ways bad, and Nominative is always good, from
years of being corrected for using the objective
pronouns where they don't properly go; the person has gotten the notion that the pronoun
should always be used in the nominative case.
(So maybe parents and teachers were not to
blame for correcting him for saying "me and so-
and-so" as the subject of the sentence; but the
person has gotten the mistaken notion that
nominative is always correct. So maybe I should
not have said "overcorrection" so much as the
person mistakenly applying the rule. Or "over-
correcting" himself).

And Sartre, said to write, but not overwrite. The reader should finish the task. However, Wolfe seemed to know that not all adjectives are created equal, and to use the right one, conveyed the right picture. Too many authors just throw out words, whatever is easy. I remember the class where "Look Homeward Angel" was the subject, many in the class hated his wordiness, they were used to easy words, many did not even know some words he used. Like many do not go for "AS", as it too is quite literate and, as with Wolfe, quite long. No mater how mnany words an author uses, interpreting between the lines is a given, but precise language does not stop us from completing the task as reader. Laziness is more of a danger, by both writers and readers.

What irritates me is error coming from overcor-
rection. For instance, the use of the nominative
where the objective should be used, as in, "You
have to listen to Ed and I." I don't so much mind
honestly ignorant bad grammar, as in "Ain't got none." But ignorance masquerading as erudition is irritating.

Well, perhaps I occasionally put through a typo. I
get in a hurry, am allowed only a limited time on
these library computers. As to grammar, I do
occasionally split an infinitive, for the purpose of
clarity. (And use "ain't" for emphasis, as in "Ain't
it the truth!")

Ask any linguistics expert or language historian and they will tell you that human beings are as lazy in their speech and writing as they are in real life. Language only grows simpler - both in form and pronunciation - over time. If you want a very simple example, I appreciate the efforts of those who seek to elevate language by using appropriate and precise terminology and by taking the time to understand and use proper grammar and punctuation because I recognize the effort that goes into such.

Sometimes, Seer, it is the difference between British English and American English, too.

If I see an occasional typo, I note it, but I don't make much of it. If I see consistent typos, not only am I annoyed, but my opinion of the writer falls quite a bit.

Exactly. At least that is what I was taught about subject/verb agreement.

I personally think that a big portion of this is backlash due to the bastardization of our language. With the advent of Twitter, Facebook, and other social media, we have abbreviated our written speech greatly. Combine that with the convenience of texting abbreviations, we have done much of this to ourselves. The laziness of the average person had made "proper" English, an aging dinosaur, along with cursive writing..

Had a professor, Dr. Marty Blinn (could have been a standup comic), in an econ class (circa 1971) explain to the resident Marxist student that if he couldn't properly express what he thought, it was because he didn't KNOW what he thought.

https://www.facebook.com/analyticalgr...