Original post on defending the purity of the English language

 

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll
From: jdnic...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian or James)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Subject: The King's English
Message-ID: <1990May15.155309.8892@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 15 May 90 15:53:09 GMT
References: <9005111639.AA25393@rutgers.edu> <8052@paperboy.OSF.ORG> <4126@thebes.Thalatta.COM> <1990May15.083934.2532@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: dae...@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 11
Posted: Tue May 15 16:53:09 1990


 The problem with defending the purity of the English language
is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't
just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages
down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for 
new vocabulary. I have a friend who has a wonderful tirade about
the incorrectness of trying to 
	1: Map Latin grammar onto English 
  He's an English teacher, BTW. I don't think he's likely to win
mass coverts, alas.
					JDN     

Formerly at this Google Groups link to their Usenet archives, but it seems to be broken.