Maheep (what would you prefer to be called?),
I generally do not make a big deal out of such things for the reasons you cite. My first love was always language and I originally wanted to be a simultaneous translator. I took an introductory linguistics class in collge (a long time ago), as well as 4 quarters of French and 2 of Classical (ancient) Greek. My mother is German. While she did not teach me German as a child, I did develop an ear for it and I always knew some German. This allowed me to become rapidly fluent when a close friend of the family got married when I was 16 and many of their German relatives came for the wedding for 2 or 3 weeks. Some of them spoke no English and I was suddenly immersed in a language to which I had long been exposed. I have also picked up a smattering of Spanish and Russian and my husband was shocked at how much of his Latin textbook I could decipher based on my knowledge of some of the Romance languages descended from Latin and on studying Latin prefixes, suffixes, and root words in order to do well on the SAT.
A language that is in daily use by a large number of people is genuinely alive and growing. Just as nature dictates that physical creatures are either growing or decaying, when language ceases to be adaptable, it begins to die. This is why you cannot have a published dictionary that is up to date and why it is difficult to learn the idioms and slang of foreign language: these things exist mostly in the living body of spoken language and any published source is guaranteed to be somewhat behind the times. "Proper usage" for written work is always an archaic form of the spoken, living language.
However, that is true of many things, not just language. Proper formal attire is generally "behind the time" as well. Women generally do not wear long dresses anymore -- unless it is an important occasion and then they dress as if it were 100 years ago. Uniforms of all kind also follow that rule. In the American Army, there is a very formal uniform called "Dress Blues" which are considered to be fancier than "Dress Greens" and are usually only owned by officers -- my husband has a set because he was a recruiter for a time. "Dress Blues" have a jacket that is a much darker shade of blue than the pants. This is a historic reference to the Civil War in the US, something which occured about 140 years ago. In the Civil War, soldiers of the North would wear their pants everyday but store their jacket in their sadal bags most of the time and only take it out for very cold weather or formal occasions. Constant exposure to sunlight and more frequent washings bleached out the color of the pants, especially since there were no synthetic materials at that time. Later, the uniform was intentionally made to look like that.
As a general rule, the more formal an organization is, the slower it changes and, therefore, the more out of date its formal attire and customs will be. For example, the uniforms of the guard at the Vatican are hundreds of years out of date in comparison to the dress uniforms of the American Military which are only 140 years out of date. That rule applies equally to formal language. The formalized, respectful language of the U.S. Senate requires members to address one another as "The Distinguished Gentleman" (for male members -- it is a historically male organization and still largely male-dominated). Again, this is language that has not been in daily usage in at least 100 years and sounded very "funny" (as in "odd") to me when I first learned of it.
The word I noted as my pet peeve -- spelling 'til as till -- I tell my kids that in a few hundred years, till will be the proper spelling and they will refer to 'til as "Archaic American" or something like that. Of course, that grows out of my assumption that in a few hundred years, the language Americans speak will be formally recognized as a separate language from 'The King's English' of Great Britain. The English spoken in Britain, Canada, the U.S. and even India all have some differences which hinder communication and are likely to continue to grow apart, in a similar fashion to the process that created the Romance languages. The "Romance Languages" of Europe are a hybrid of local tribal languages and Latin (the language of Rome -- Romance in this case refers to the Roman Empire and not to hearts and flowers and being in love). All European languages that fall in the geographic area which was once covered by the Roman Empire are a mixture of local languages and Latin. The Romance languages are more strongly Latin. The Germanic languages have a heavier influence from local tribal languages. Geographically, proximity to Rome is a significant influencing factor.
So, just as Rome had an Empire, spread its language far and wide, receded, and Latin began to differentiate based on local usage, Great Britain more recently had an empire, spread its language far and wide, and now English has begun to differentiate into various subsets. Perhaps the advent of the Internet and a Global Economy will slow the rate at which these localized languages grow apart and differentiate. It would be interesting to see, but I won't live long enough to really and truly know.
Nonetheless, for formal and proper English, those archaic and outdated forms are important. More current usages are rightfully known as colloguialisms or slang or conversational English. There is a practical reason for sticking to the archaic, formalized usages for a time: they are more universally understood than the living language and its many new-born words, phrases, and ideas. Therefore, it promotes communication to a broader audience -- for a time, at least. When it becomes so archaic that it hinders communication, it generally ceases to be seen as "proper" and gets reclassified as "out of date".
Respectfully,
Michele
