I raise this topic because I have now, for the umpteenth time, suffered a silly dispute that ultimately boiled down to a misunderstanding of my wording. Now, the fundamental rule of all language is that language is what people use it to mean, not what some authority says that it should mean. If I make a statement that somebody else misunderstands, then -- in general -- the fault is mine.

On the other hand, language is always in flux and people are always stretching the meanings of words in ways that make them less meaningful. Take the word "arrogant", for example. Most people use the word as a synonym for "proud", "vainglorious", or "conceited". But that's not what the word has meant in the past. Its traditional meaning is "taking or assuming privileges or powers that one does not deserve". We use the same root in the verb "arrogate", whose meaning is as yet undiluted. So what is a good debater to do: use "arrogant" in the common sense of "conceited" and contribute to the continued reduction in the semantic precision of the word, or insist on using it in its traditional sense?

Here is an apocryphal example of the kind of problem I encounter: I observe that Government Official X has taken upon himself a power that properly belongs to Government Official Y. I write that Government Official X is arrogant. At which point somebody jumps all over me for making a personal slur on the Government Official X. By the dictionary, I'm right. By popular usage, I'm wrong. Do I shoot back at my critic and tell him to learn how to use the English language properly?

What makes this dilemma so difficult is that there is a large grey area where the language is in flux. There are some usages that are so far along that to object to them is pedantic. Example: confusing the verbs "effect" and "affect". I wince every time I see this mistake, but I keep my mouth shut. There are other usages that are in early stages and should properly be denounced. Example: failure to recognize the subjunctive. Suppose I were to write "If Politician X obtained the money illegally, then we should prosecute him." and in response another person were to attack my statement for calling Politician X a criminal. I didn't call Politician X a criminal, I presented a statement predicated on the hypothesis that Politician X is a criminal. Presented this way, it is obvious that my critic is failing to understand English. Yet I have observed this kind of mistake -- in more complicated contexts -- several times here on AD. So what is the proper approach: correct the critic's poor understanding of English, or accept that some people don't understand subjunctive mood?

So the topic for debate is:

Where should we draw the line between English that's too high-falutin' for AD and English that's too dummied down for AD?