(I know you're being a little silly here but my two cents: )

It's more pretentious to insist that a language is an unyielding entity, that there are gramatical rules that are fixed into place, canonical spellings for things, proper ways of doing things. Clearly, on the one hand, I favor standardization as a way to effect proper communication. On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in language evolution, dawinism for grammar if you will. A language that doesn't adapt, will eventually become another latin. For a while, there were latinates who *insisted* and waged a purity of language campaign. Basically standardized spellings and words and constructs were held in higher regard than evolved sequences that more clearly articulated new ideas, situations more succinctly than the old "proper" way of doing things.

Usage, definition, all these rules are subject to change. Like nouns becoming verbs, split infinitives becoming acceptable, etc.

This sort of evolution occurs in isolated pockets, and the successful "memes" reproduce and spread to the rest of the language ("population"). The unsuccessful modifications die out, and the constant changes keep the language adaptive and alive.

Calvin