Debating the Usage

Reading the debate from the New York Times, I agree with Lane. He uses various examples in his writing to prove his point like The Elements of Style and the Bible. Both writers presented their points clearly but his point seemed stronger.

To further understand what is going on here there are two kinds of language "teams". There are the descriptivist who try to describe language as it is used, and the prescriptivist who focus on the usage of language as it is expected. Personally I believe language never stays the same and these rules that are applied, are a good tool but shouldn't dictate how a person uses language. This is why Lanes view on the subject appealed to me more. 

lane submits a meta rule that would let language grow while still applying some rules to it. In this meta rule he proposes that "When a proposed rule and actual usage conflict, the proposed rule is false, and actual usage should be our guide."Even though the other writer does not agree with his meta rule, I think its a good way to work from an error in something to the usage of it. This way it can be applied in a way that in a sense is mainstream and anyone can understand.

What really got me to take this side was when Lane wrote: "I glory in the real-world mess of dialects and slang, and think that some popular prescriptivists have imposed some bogus nonrules on too many schoolchildren.". It is true that most of the times what I write is not really how I talk with my friends but it all depends on the register. Still, wouldn't it be pretty interesting to see how slang could come into writing without the rules dictating how it should and shouldn't?