“1. I am a professional linguist with a Ph.D. Here is why you are wrong. You see, the morphologically syndectic polysemy of the nominative case is actually the inverse of what [Safire; Simon; Newman... fill in the blank] claims it is [ insert other intimidating, jargon-ridden gibberish]. Therefore, he is illogical and wrong, and has made a fool of himself (with a little help from me).

2. Oh, and Shakespeare, Milton, Johnson, Boswell, and Jane Austin all used the word this way. See the OED.

3. By the way, did I mention that I have a Ph.D in linguistics?”

The pattern is so obvious and predictable that I could recognize it in my sleep. If you think that that line of argument represents an improvement, in the form of “education”, over the assertions of ignorant and narrow-minded prescriptivists, then you are as foolish as the extremists of either party.

I am not comfortable with prescriptivism *pur et dur*. I am, however, also not convinced that that form of prescriptivism even exists, anymore. The descriptivists immolate a straw man when they invoke the “Mrs. Grundys” of the world, ruler ever poised in hand to rap the knuckles of anyone who dares to split an infinitive. Descriptivists need to learn the difference between making stylistic recommendations and making inflexible rules.

On the other hand, I do believe in a standard form of English that values clarity, grace, “flexible continuity”, and that challenges one to master its forms–in other words, I follow the old adage, “learn the rules and conventions before you break them”. I will never mistake errors made out of ignorance or peer pressure for the linguistic innovations of the Elizabethans.