Grammarians weep! The bell tolls for `whom'

From the gerund to apostrophes, components of our language are succumbing to attacks by the ignorant. An angry and despairing Walter Roberts seeks a way out

Crimes of violence are increasing - and not just those against the person. It may not hit the headlines, but English grammar is being subjected to sustained assaults which, in the aggressive parlance of the day, are rearranging its features. It is time the silent, and decreasing, majority, protested.

We can overlook petty infringements like split infinitives or the use of conjunctions to begin sentences. In any case the Oxford University Press has now confirmed that those usages do not have a criminal persona after all.

Nor can there be much regret over what might be regarded as organic changes in the language. For example, it seems fairly natural for the likes of "stadia" and "referenda" to have become "stadiums" and "referendums". Likewise the compression of "under way" into "underway" probably has respectable precedents. Respect for equal opportunities dictates acceptance of the demise of feminine nouns - for example actresses are apparently now actors. It is possible even to adjust to topsy-turvy alterations such as that whereby people now find decisions are "down" and not "up" to them. All those changes are born of ignorance but in their case ignorance is almost bliss.

What do seem objectionable are the attacks on grammar by the ignoramuses who wield the literary equivalent of a baseball bat. Some of the miscreants can be found at the addresses of tabloid newspapers, advertising agencies or W1A 0AA (Parliament). Others, alas, come from what were believed to be better homes, such as the BBC and the broadsheets. Whoever the instigators, the sad thing is that the many weaker brethren among us tend to pick up their bad habits.

As a result of their misdeeds, it now appears that no distinction is to be made between "may" and "might", between "shall" and "will", between "either" and "each", between "criterion" and "criteria" and between "phenomenon" and "phenomena". Similarly "less" is to be used where "fewer" should be found. We shall in future be saying "Can we?" when we mean "May we?" and the word "whom", if not already buried, soon will be, with "who" taking its place, regardless of what case applies. Something which can only be "unique" will be described as "very unique". "Refute" already seems to have been bludgeoned into a new meaning of "reject" instead of "disprove" and the spelling of "choose" is gradually being twisted into "chose" while conversely "lose" is becoming "loose".

Adverbs are being repeatedly knocked down and stamped on with adjectives, so that, for example, things are now done "quicker" instead of "more quickly".

The gerund is being robbed of its proper descriptors; thus we now see expressions like "him doing" something instead of "his doing".

Then we have the crude battering of object into subject as in "Me and my mate ..." (followed by a verb) instead of "My mate and I ..." As if in atonement for that aberration, we see ludicrous attempts at self-effacement by the use of "myself" when "I" or "me", as the case may be, is what is meant.

Apostrophes suffer multiple sins of omission and commission. Sometimes they are scattered like confetti with no regard to their relevance, sometimes they are left out incorrectly. "It's" instead of "its", meaning belonging to it, is a classic example of the misdeeds.

Phrases are not immune from the assaults of the obscurantists. "As far as (someone/something) is/are concerned" is being sneakily deprived of its "is/are concerned" element. A "neither ... or" has been perpetrated on the radio and in the press. And hope has presumably gone for "different from" after its pummelling into "different to", or, worse, "different than".

The extent of the mischief is evident even in slang. A derogatory term now in vogue is "toe-rag", roughly meaning a bit of a hooligan. What in heaven's name is a toe-rag - something grape-treaders use when they step out of the vat? The real derivation is probably from "Tuareg", reputed to be a fearsome Arab brigand. Our unconscious neologists, sensing an insulting connotation but having no concept of the real meaning or spelling, will have proceeded blithely to write it phonetically. That is remarkable enough but what is worse is that others, who should have known better, have blindly adopted the misinterpretation without thinking to question the word's meaning or validity.

These transgressions against the language are vexing enough for the concerned layman. They must be agony for the academics of English who will be aware of many more.

Periodically the wail goes up about the near-illiteracy of senior school pupils and university entrants. Maybe they are smarter than we think. Why bother learning grammatical skills only to discover later that 'tis folly to be wise?

Education ministers will no doubt claim to be as tough as their home affairs colleagues on crime and the causes of crime but things just seem to get worse. Perhaps we should simply accept that anything goes now as far as the language is concerned (or should that just be "as far as the language"?) and look on the bright side - that the funding crisis in education could be eased rapidly and substantially by putting an end to the teaching of English. We pedants could always emigrate to some other part of Europe safe in the knowledge that violence against English there would be much less pronounced, in both senses of the word.