"So there goes the whole accusative, dative twaddle out the window."

I agree.

Personally, I prefer to use subjective, objective and possessive for the few incidences of case in English. Using nominative, accusative, dative et al. is utterly misleading.

For one thing, there is no pure accusative or dative case in English and the objective case is confined to only a few desultory pronouns (not a single noun has an objective case form!).

To quote Kent Brockman: here's my two cents.

Spell it either without any accents at all ("resume") or with both ("résumé").

Depending on your particular English accent, say REZ-you-may or REZ-zoo-may.

I am a French speaker but I can tell you that you are not obliged to pronounce this word as if you were an énarque hunting for a position in the fonction publique!

"I recently gave a class of six year olds a spelling test and saw that many of the children were spelling words with the correct letters but had used capital letters at the beginning, middle or end of a word."

Bless their little hearts for demonstrating some spontaneous creativity and fun.

Don't worry, a few more years of school and they'll have that knocked out them.

Then they'll be just as correct, boring and tedious as the rest of us.

This really has nothing to do with grammar per se. Both "big red bull" and "red big bull" are grammatically sound.

The problem here exists at an aesthetic and stylistic level above grammar: "red big bull" just doesn't sound good. It's the faulty cadence and alliteration caused by two successive words which start with "b."

Putting "red" between them improves the melodic effect.

"And, contrary to what some would believe, if the vast majority of people say the word--any word--in a way that is now considered "incorrect," the "incorrect" one may very well become the "correct" pronunciation in the future."

Many grammar "authorities" just can't accept that popular majority determines usage in language. It's the grammatical equivalent of "look at my Johnny, he's the only one in step in the whole parade."

"Lexicographers are not supposed to invent, but only report."

Unfortunately, lexicographers, like the rest of us, are all too human. They bring their pet notions and causes to the task at hand. There's a long history of obscure and made-up words being advocated by lexicographers. Indeed, some dictionaries deliberately invent fake words for copyright purposes.

As an example, google the word "esquivalience."

Wow!

Over two years since this thread got started again.

No matter.

Yes, words like "coulda" and "wanna" are contractions. Yes, they involve clitics.

Ultimately though, I'd suggest the correct linguistic term for these words is - "word."

(I realize there are old postings here.)

"English is not a language that uses separate nouns to distinguish between sexes regularly enough for there to be strong rules regarding such usage."

But I'll bet those "rules" are strong enough to prevent "actress" from being used for a male actor.

"Adding 'ess' the end of a word to identify the female forms has its origins in sexism, not sexual equality. Words such as actress, manageress, etc are sexist identifiers to show that form is not normal and out of the ordinary."

This is manifest political tosh and quackery applied to language. The "-ess" suffix (as someone noted) has its origins in gender rather than sex (language tip: gender and sex are not synonymous).

What is true is that the "-ess" versions have gone out of fashion.

"If common usage doesn't make it right, then what does make it right?"

Excellent point, John.

I am constantly amazed at those whose philosophy of language usage amounts to little more than:

"Look at my Jimmy, he's the only one in the parade marching in step."

It's a typo or a good old-fashioned spelling mistake.

We can certainly overcomplicate English by thinking about it too much sometimes.

To me, the short answer is that this particular use of the subjunctive verb form (John's "Number 2 form") appears destined to become increasingly optional. Indeed, it seems sometimes in British English that there's almost a deliberate campaign to eradicate the form.

Emily is wrong to say the subjunctive is "silly" but actually quite right to say it is not as necessary in English as it is in French.

And why is it necessary in French?

Because it is. Language is like that.