We gonna English today, people.

[William]

It's said by linguists that American English is closer to Shakespearean English than British English which has evolved into something else altogether.

Lol, I have heard American linguists claim that, but we shall never know until someone unearths an audio recording made at the time of Elizabeth I.

[Captdon]

Grammar?

'It never changes,' William said.

"It never changes," William said.

We can't even decide on this.

[William]

Grammar?

'It never changes,' William said.

"It never changes," William said.

We can't even decide on this.

I have no trouble deciding upon which quotation marks to use.

"We can't even decide on this," said Captdon. I use the standard double inverted commas when quoting someone verbatim.

Shakespeare was not necessarily being ant-semitic when he wrote 'The Merchant of Venice'. I am referring to a literary work, not quoting Shakespeare - so I use single quotation marks. I also use single quotation marks when I want to draw attention to something specific, or odd, or humorous (I don't know if that is correct usage, but it seems to work).

This is a very interesting question. The short answer is that it depends on what country you are writing in. In British and Australian English, one typically uses single quotation marks. If writing in North America, double quotation marks are typically used.

https://www.scribendi.com/advice/whe..._marks.en.html

This is a good example (from the same site) of the use of both single and double quotation marks -

"When I say 'immediately,' I mean some time before August," said the manager.

And grammatical construction changes (only slightly), but only over many centuries, so, in effect, it stays much the same in our lifetime - but new words evolve, and old words go out of fashion.

Let's compare Elizabethan grammar to modern usage. A common interpretation of this sentence - "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?" might be "Romeo, Romeo, why are you called Romeo?" Words have changed, but the subject and verb still occur in the same place, and the sentence construction remains much the same.

[Dr. Who]

Was the executed prison hanged or hung (or both)?

Unless the prisoner was a coat, he was hanged.

[Standing Wolf]

But of course the British Isles have many dialects (which sprang up at a time when travel was not available to the poor,) but there is only one English language, and RP is the most easily understood accent.

I was stationed on a British Air Force base on the coast of Wales in the late '80s, and found myself being frequently embarrassed at having to ask people to repeat what they'd just said to me - sometimes more than once. Americans who think they'll have no problem understanding what they hear spoken over there are, I believe, victims of the practice of "toning down" the accent in any film or t.v. show that hopes to gain an audience outside the U.K. I believe that it's less the accent itself than it is the cadence of speech, the (to us) unfamiliar placement of syllabic emphasis and the use of slang terms.

On the subject of English usage, I've noted that sometimes the incorrect employment of a certain word becomes so frequent and ubiquitous that it's probably best to simply give up and accept that what started out being wrong can't really be said to be wrong any longer. I'm thinking of the word "squash". These days I'm constantly hearing that word used to denote the suppression of something - as in, "We have to move to squash that effort". Of course what the speaker or writer means is "quash". There is no alternate definition of "squash" that would allow its usage in that context. Of course the compilers of dictionaries make note of trends and popular usage, and I am guessing that it won't be long before there will be.

[Helena]

...
On the subject of English usage, I've noted that sometimes the incorrect employment of a certain word becomes so frequent and ubiquitous that it's probably best to simply give up and accept...

Never!

[Dr. Who]

I was stationed on a British Air Force base on the coast of Wales in the late '80s, and found myself being frequently embarrassed at having to ask people to repeat what they'd just said to me - sometimes more than once. Americans who think they'll have no problem understanding what they hear spoken over there are, I believe, victims of the practice of "toning down" the accent in any film or t.v. show that hopes to gain an audience outside the U.K. I believe that it's less the accent itself than it is the cadence of speech, the (to us) unfamiliar placement of syllabic emphasis and the use of slang terms.

On the subject of English usage, I've noted that sometimes the incorrect employment of a certain word becomes so frequent and ubiquitous that it's probably best to simply give up and accept that what started out being wrong can't really be said to be wrong any longer. I'm thinking of the word "squash". These days I'm constantly hearing that word used to denote the suppression of something - as in, "We have to move to squash that effort". Of course what the speaker or writer means is "quash". There is no alternate definition of "squash" that would allow its usage in that context. Of course the compilers of dictionaries make note of trends and popular usage, and I am guessing that it won't be long before there will be.

I would say it comes from the use of the word squash, to mean compress or squeeze.

Word Origin for squash

C16: from Old French esquasser , from Vulgar Latin exquassāre (unattested), from Latin ex- 1 + quassāre to shatter
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/squash

[Standing Wolf]

I would say it comes from the use of the word squash, to mean compress or squeeze.

Word Origin for squash

C16: from Old French esquasser , from Vulgar Latin exquassāre (unattested), from Latin ex- 1 + quassāre to shatter
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/squash

I'm sure you're right, but it's still improper. The right word is "quash".

Another one I've given up on at this point is the use of the term "It begs the question" - begging the question being a logical fallacy in which a premise contains an unproven assumption. Everyone in the media and public life now uses it to mean, "That leads to another question". It's like they're saying, "This other question is now begging to be asked". They've totally $#@!ized the original meaning of the term.

[countryboy]

Is moonwalkin, backpedaling?

I freakin' love that clip. Dude was absolutely incredible.

[Dr. Who]

I'm sure you're right, but it's still improper. The right word is "quash".

Another one I've given up on at this point is the use of the term "It begs the question" - begging the question being a logical fallacy in which a premise contains an unproven assumption. Everyone in the media and public life now uses it to mean, "That leads to another question". It's like they're saying, "This other question is now begging to be asked". They've totally $#@!ized the original meaning of the term.

It's an unfortunate consequence of the phrase's (petitio principii) original mistranslation from latin, which actually translates to "assuming the initial point". When a phrase doesn't or no longer makes sense in the contemporary vernacular, people are apt to adopt it in a fashion that does make sense.

Here is another such adaptation: “You’ve got another thing coming.” This is actually incorrect - it's supposed to be “You’ve got another think coming”, the idea being “If you think that, you’ve got another think coming.” Of course, this doesn't make much sense to most people, so they have replaced think with thing and the phrase makes better sense and can be used more broadly.