"I have found both terminations in verbs like optimiz(s)e, prioritiz(s)e, criticis(z)e. Which (or when, or where) is the academically correct form ?"

The answer is yes.

There is no accusative form in English; you meant "objective". Not the same thing.

And the only "true" nominative forms occur only as a tiny corpus of pronouns: I, he, she, we, they and who - if you are one of those who still use "whom".

"I would certainly say something like, 'Boy, was I mad. I really went through the roof'. However, it's my biggest pet peeve to hear somebody say, 'Boy, was I mad. I literally went through the roof'."

I'm amused that you would get all huffy about "literally" but yet have no objection to the use of "boy" as an interjection.

Why is the original meaning of "literally" so sacrosanct in your view but not that of "boy"?

BJONES: "Fine, let's just change all the meanings of words to whatever we like..."

Well, in a sense, that's what does happen in language anyway.

Why don't you explain how the word "fine" took on its meaning of "OK" in your statement above?

"I live in a country where English isn't the primary language so if these usages sound weird to you, they sound even weirder to me."

Not a problem, Ramon. Many constructions that native speakers take for granted can strike you as very odd when you do examine them closer.

A good example is something like "I had better go home" which can be very perplexing to a non-native English speaker when first encountered.

Even more perplexing in its elliptical form: "I better go home"!

I must side with Hamish here. The adverb "literally" is (and has been) commonly used in English for emphasis and hyperbole.

Quite obviously, no one hearing a statement like "I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse" will assume that the speaker is actually hungry enough to eat a horse.

But language pedants have a bad habit of putting up such false arguments to rationalize their various peeves.

No amount of belly-aching is going to change that.

"Is it grammatically correct to say 'It had impacts on...'?"

Yes.

(Sounds pretty leaden though.)

Still at it, eh?

Still at it, eh?

It's clearly a regionalism/dialect form. It actually makes some sense too. It seems to simply follow the pattern of all the other personal possessive pronouns: yours, his, hers, its, ours and theirs.