All languages are evolving from one generation to the next; we should not be unduly surprised if English is changing within our own lifetide. Why should we try to stop it?

1) Splintering: there are some 27 aboriginal language families in Australia: historically, languages splinter off into dialects and then distinct languages. Internet, TV and print has slowed this process.

2) Backwards compatibility: only by slowing the rate of change can we hope that Shakespeare et al will remain understandable down the generations to come. We already have two rifts in continuity: the loss of Celtic (or whatever was spoken in SE England in AD 500) and Gaelic in the Lowlands; and the loss of swathes of OE words after the coming of William the Bastard. These are the only real asks when looking at English today: how did these rifts come about? How did "river" come to supplant "ea" and so forth?

3) Using the above benchmarks, the end-stance would be that we should take onboard whatever changes are happening today unless they undermine backwards compatibility. However that does not "feel" right: we bemoan any change, clinging to the usages of our youth, seemingly unaware that the next generation has already writing its own version of English, and there is nowt to be done about it. Do you really think those to come will really care what we thought or how we spoke? Play a movie from the 1930s: laugh at the accent, as your offspring will laugh at yours.

http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/words/date.htm

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/70122/how-do-i-formally-speak-dates

The main point is "next Wednesday" is ambigous; it just comes down to who is using it. If someone does use it, one needs to clarify: "this Wednesday" or "Wednesday week" ?

US date format is commonly month_day_year, written as June 6, 1944.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_and_time_notation_in_the_United_States

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=if+anyone+else+were+to%2Cif+anyone+else+was+to&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cif%20anyone%20else%20were%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bif%20anyone%20else%20were%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BIf%20anyone%20else%20were%20to%3B%2Cc0

Frankly I teach only "were to" to students learning English; the old subjunctive sounds good here.

@Byron: Over the centuries a form of "standard" Enlglish has come about, used by government, business and education so that all may communicate clearly. This does not mean that any one dialect is wrong or bad; just different and perhaps not so widely understood.

"wrong" in this context should mean "not conforming to generally accepted anglo principles"

(cf "GAAP" !)

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1597064

http://www.1066andallthat.com/english_middle/standard_04.asp

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99087473.pdf

".. if he was to be re-eligible,.." Pennsylvania. Constitutional Convention - ‎1837
" .. if he was to decide at once.." Parliamentary Debates: Official Report :Volume 39 - 1819
"..if he were to take it into his head .. Hansard's Parliamentary Debates 1832
".. If he were to leave the number of lists at fourteen.." Lord Brougham's Speech on Reform in Chancery: Delivered in 1831

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=if+he+were+to%2C+if+he+was+to&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cif%20he%20were%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bif%20he%20were%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BIf%20he%20were%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cif%20he%20was%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bif%20he%20was%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BIf%20he%20was%20to%3B%2Cc0

This site seems to go for one-sentence paragraphs much of the time:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11517471

Either this comes from AFP or someone is deliberately splitting the newsfeed into tiny paragraphs. Whether this splintering improves on-screen readability is a good ask, but it certainly raises questions about the future of paragraphing in general.

The Hungarian word "ing" translates as "shirt" in English. However, calling the "-ing" form of the verb the "shirt" form is not well understood; nor does it prove the existence of an Ugric substrate in English.

@WW agreed it is the usage which is the issue.
I sometimes wonder whether we would not be better off focussing on a decision tree (like a flowchart). For instance:
1) Active or Passive?
2) Present or Past?
3) Simple, Continuous, or Perfect?
4) Modal?

In my experience of using non-English tongues, the best way is often to just copy what one has heard and hope for the best: better to say something than nothing. Not quite so true when writing but one still needs some easy-to-follow ideas when texting and emailing.