For the Upholding of a Reputable English Language

Our English language today is on the verge of death. Corrupt to the core as she has been for nearly a thousand years, still the language has endured and improved, and I dare say hit her peak in the 19th century; but today we struggle not against simple evolution or increasing corruption, but rather a point of mass cultural and spiritual suicide. Our polite Anglo-Saxon society passed down in clear succession since the Middle Ages has been undone and defiled for about fifty to one hundred years, depending on how much one counts the holdouts which persisted until the Civil Rights Era. In a perfectly current context with perfect hindsight and decent insight into the nature of people, I do not necessarily lay blame on them oriented toward the left or right, nor on the people of America or Britain, as we all are bond in one way or another; first to our captors and second to the savages of our lands who are fashioned as tools for the propagation of subversive and degrading language. There is much more to say on this topic, but at this point I shall lay out my advisories against a few regressions which have occurred -- mainly in American English; make of this what you will.

Rampant Errors in Common Writing

I do not believe it worthy of much debate to say that the gravest problem facing English is the outbreak of people thinking they can write just because they can read. A new written vernacular has arisen, mainly through the Internet, which amounts foremost to being Yankee written dialect in which grammatical rules upheld for over one hundred years are simply bypassed in favor of Anarchy -- the which is popular these days, appealing especially to the vulgar American mindset. Through the propagation of this vernacular, the language of the untaught literate has saturated almost all online publications, which by nature comprise the majority of commonly-read content. Simply put, the Modern English language has already been replaced by what I am fond of calling Post-Modern English. If any remedy is in order, it is to raise awareness of the most common errors (yes, errors) which endanger the integrity of our language, our culture, and any future we may build upon either one:

1. Singular they/them/their. It is an unacceptable loss of clarity to use our language's only set of third person plural pronouns on any single person. Singular they in instances of ambiguity enjoyed a steep increase throughout the 20th century, which is arguably convenient in speech, but is unnecessary and dangerous in deliberate writing. One who uses singular they essentially adheres to one of three possible routes: First, he may use it only in cases of ambiguity -- when speaking of a person who is unknown or hypothetical. Second, he may use it in an absolute sense for anyone, even when speaking of someone he knows well. This route is currently being propagated by the flourishing Globohomo community, and any among you who are sympathetic to this viewpoint may go ahead and disregard the rest of this document. Third, he may use it haphazardly, sometimes in instances of ambiguity, sometimes for a hypothetical person whose sex is known, ofttimes alongside the pronoun everyone, which, might I remind you all, is singular. It must be remembered that they/them/their are loans of the Old Norse third person singular male pronouns, which is precisely why singular they is attested back to the 12th century: it had no concrete meaning in English. At the time, English had her own third person plural pronouns, which were unusable following the Great Vowel Shift. They/them/their took the place of those pronouns by necessity, which brought us to the point of singular they being proscribed, and remaining so until the meltdown of polite society in America.

2. Split infinitives, or to not. This is an issue of less import, but still represents a major and all-encompassing backslide in our written language. A to-infinitive phrase in English is expressed in to [verb]. So, to go is an infinitive, and to not go is an infinitive which has been split by not. To not is an outstandingly offensive development found in Yankee English which, regardless of how one feels, represents a new inconsistency in written English as the older and long-approved not to is still in use and found in the overwhelming majority of writings before this century. Now, to-infinitives which are split with adjectives have been around for longer; an example of which being to boldly go, where boldly splits the to-infinitive. Practically all proper writers in the last century would have said boldly to go or to go boldly, while the split-infinitive word order is much more likely to arise in natural spoken language. I disapprove any writings which split any to-infinitive phrase -- an increasingly unpopular view.

3. Contrary placement of only. This problem has overwhelmingly plagued our English for at least sixty years by my estimation, and it seems that only the most articulate writers have chosen to avoid it: If someone says "I only have three," what comes to mind? Bear with me -- does it imply that he has no more than three of a given thing, or does it imply that he is in a state of doing nothing with the three but having them? To simplify, what do you see in "I only live for you"? Is the speaker saying that he lives only for you -- living for no one but you; or does he imply that he only lives for you -- living, but doing nothing else for you? As you can see, some instances are straightforward from intention to interpretation, but others seriously damage the implications of the sentence. This problem is so common that I believe it has worsened English's credibility as a literary language altogether. If one does it the right way, it is good -- if his only should go after the verb, making a clear sentence, that is; but if his intention should be to put only BEFORE the verb, then his meaning is impossible to infer because it is more common for that placement to be incorrect, and therefore meaningless.

4. The reasoning of because. We all have seen and heard "the reason is because." It is simply unnecessary, unwelcome in the writing of all who value brevity, and in my opinion ought to be removed from common speech altogether. Say "The reason is..." or "That is because..." and leave it at that.

5. Should versus ought. Should ought to be, primarily, the subjunctive form of shall. In this sense both words are waning from our vocabularies -- they are practically gone from the common new vernacular -- but nonetheless, ought removes any chance of ambiguity: It simply means what it means, and it ought to be favored in formal or imposing writing of any kind. Additionally, replacing shall with will altogether has made it difficult for statements even to be taken seriously, and "shall we go?" makes much more sense than "should we go?".

6. Negrification of common speech. This in fact covers a wide array of grammatical decay affecting us, as Negroes have been exalted to a position of comedic masters. Every other impact font image macro and humorous proverb features some variation of niggas be like. White people ought never to say "nigga". I dare say that be like could be acceptable in a proverbial sense considering the precedent of Old English byĆ¾, but given that the origins of the aforementioned are with people who remain stubbornly near-illiterate (unsurprisingly, such constructs as we is persist among them even now, even as all Americans receive reasonably equal education) every writer ought to try to remove this meme-speak from his head.

7. Romantic jargon. English is a Germanic language through and through, especially in everyday vocabulary, but ever since Chaucer fashioned us our literary language, all thanks and prestige have been given over to Romance languages' influence. I am not a serious advocate of Anglish -- the which would amount to pulling the proverbial rug out from under a thousand years of writing -- but I do believe the Modern English language is in a "take it or leave it" state. We must either preserve what we have or let things go until there is no choice but to replace it, which is why the Germanic base of the language must always be considered and nourished, the English way. Most of our great writers for most of our run have built upon the true English with more French and more Latin, which if not countered will amount to English becoming a different language even moreso. One must always take care to say things as concisely as is possible, using the Romance words directly and literally whilst using native words as much as is acceptable. The advent of technology and the cult of science have caused even the most common mouths to rattle off "big words" which are meaningless in this language, so for the first time since Tolkien it shall be needed for keen writers to take up the mantle of using basic English, and doing it well.

8. Dishonorable mentions. Incorrectly-nativised spellings of Romance-derived phrases, such as per say and en mass. Incorrect and contrary use of apostrophes meant to indicate plural ownership. Contrary usage of the word substitute, where the intended meaning is explicity opposite -- outlined in this vulgar, profanity-laced British rant. Overuse of like, actually, and needless to say, literally.

My Advisories for a New Precise and Widespread Form

You have likely noticed that I have used "British" spellings at several points throughout this document: the main intention being that I am completely opposed to spelling reform in the English language. We have come so far using spellings which have not been substantially adapted to our pronunciation for about six hundred years, save for partial attempts here and there, and it has cemented English as a language whose writings will stand the test of time. We can still read eight hundred-year-old writings in approximately our current pronunciation because we write as if the Great Vowel Shift had never happened, and we still write letters whose sounds are altogether gone from the language, such as kn, wr, and gh. This means that the written language of today is still a very old one, and it also means that we have very few homographs -- same spellings for different words. I am opposed both to what Noah Webster intended to do, and to what he actually wound up accomplishing: with perfect hindsight the conclusion is inevitable that English could not and cannot be reformed without total overhaul, the likes of which would necessarily destroy historical ties and disenfranchise dialects, especially driving a rift between the North and South, and between the two sides of the Atlantic. However, Webster's spellings, at least the ones which succeeded at coming into use, were generally attested and somewhat known well before; attestation is important when bringing anything into common use. Therefore, I have formulated my own opinions regarding each of the major revisions to English spelling:

1. Picking -ise or -ize. This is the easiest decision of them all. -ise spellings are necessarily found throughout even American English, and the letter s necessarily must make the z sound in certain non-initial instances, so it should be best to cleave toward -ise spellings all the time.

2. Picking -se or -ce. The most notable words concerned here are practise, or practice; license or licence. While the pronunciation is the same either way, I have found it convenient to use the -se spelling of both words for the verb form, and the -ce spelling for the noun: compare advise and advice, prophesy and prophecy. So, one may license something for use under the conditions of its licence.

3. Picking -ed or -t. Both of these spellings are necessarily found in both American and British English, often varying more by regions of the countries than by the countries themselves. Another invention of mine is, when both spellings of a word are attested and in common use, to use the -ed form for simple past, and the -t form for participles. So for example, burnt and burned may work together as in "The house is being burnt" and "The house burned." I was inspired to begin this practice after learning of how Swedish uses -de for simple past, and -it for past participle.

4. Picking -our or -or. Following the Norman Conquest, France and England have had as much of a linguistic solidarity as they have had a rivalry, so traces of French from then to now are never hard to find. Our -our spellings are found mainly in Romance words which came to us from French in the aftermath of the Conquest, while -or spellings found even in British English are usually part of words which were later loaned directly from Latin, often in the 17th century on. I happen to sympathise with the elimination of -our spellings as they are an inconsistency which needlessly inflates the letter count of a line of text, or at least if I were to retain them consciously I should like to turn all -or spellings to -our for the sake of consistency and style, which some writers did attempt to do centuries ago.

5. Picking -ll- or -l-. This difference between British and American English is most controversial in cancelled versus canceled. The latter is actually the American spelling, but it looks so wrong that many Americans use the former, which is the British spelling. Therefore, I strongly favor always using double-L spellings for consistency with other words.

6. Spellings of the little words. A number of native English words were mangled to match Romance spelling sometime around the 17th century, such as turning sithe into scythe for to match with Romance scissor, and changing iland to island for to match with Romance-derived isle. Needless to say, I am not much in favor of these changes, but do not see the words ever reverting to how they once were. However, Webster changed a few little words himself, such as grey to gray and axe to ax, which I completely abhor.

The Root of Our Evil

English has been faced with subversion for as long as there has been a reason to subvert. Her hybrid-like nature and simplistic grammar lend well to her being a tool of the Globalists, which is why no amount of chauvinism could have saved our language from the events of the past century. Singular they has been promoted by woman writers for quite a while, and our lack of grammatical gender allows for certain butchers to speak in a "genderless" manner, then force it on other languages which do not accomodate: see "Latinx". Even the concept of male virgins is largely an export of the Anglosphere, in the absence of the strict maiden/wife distinction of old. However, the reason American English has rotted so quickly and so completely has been a direct result of the politics of this nation, with the Second World War being a major turning point, at which our variation of the written language went from prestige to slow ruin. The Yankees we fought in the Civil War are all but gone; New York is now occupied by a plague worse than that of the rats, and out West we have seen the most outstandingly obnoxious dialects take hold. The cause here has been primarily the influx of immigrants which beset us in the late 19th century, most learning English just at their arrival, and having no dialectical tradition from which to draw. So, in those places, we now have at least three generations' worth of rootless non-Americans whose language will shift much more quickly and radically than would the language of the old North and South. The television first acted as a means of dialect erasure, introducing Southerners to the neat allure of news anchor-speak, but today, the English of the majority of the country is so overexaggerated, floundering and homosexual; and so all writing and all traditional dialects are in dire peril.

Preservation of the Language Going Forward

If a descriptivist is one who deals with how things are and a prescriptivist deals with how they ought to be, then I may be considered either a descriptivist of the past or a prescriptivist of the present. English has been in steep decline for longer than most care to admit; the loss of second person plural pronouns having been the most serious blow to the language's functionality. Today, however, we are faced with a rot which most likely cannot be overcome. It may swallow us all up before there is any hope of saving language or culture. Even so, it is the duty of all beauty-minded individuals to seek out the better things which have been, and may be again. I believe the most useful way to preserve the language as it ought to be, should be to study her history further back and more indepth than is currently taught. Everyone seriously interested in writing ought to be well-versed in Middle English and at least passing in Old English or another relatively pure Germanic language -- not by compulsion, but by the will of an aspiring writer -- only then can it be possible to remind enthusiastic folk what was, join it together with the ought to be, and with a few small miracles forge a brand of literature that surpasses even those of the elders we hold to have been masters.