The wife is on a trip with her family. I'm cooking for myself tonight

I didn't put thought into it. Unless I'm working on something formal I don't typically weigh the options when choosing my words. "the wife" was just the phrase that came when I decided to make this topic.

As an aside, thanks for the suggestions.

That's a sufficient answer, thanks

Grammar is a new concept relative to the English language. Following there "rules" of Grammer stifles the growth of the language.

There is no single authority on grammar in the English language. There's no grammar book, there are no universally accepted laws of grammar. You took what you were taught in grade school and parrot it like gospel.

Languages change and evolve as cultures grow. The simple existence of dialects shows how much language can change over time. There's several versions of English used in America even though it was settled largely by people of the same general origin.

Linguistics is a complicated topic and trying to apply strict rules to any language is a waste of time that stifles advancement

Russian and Italian also have strict grammar, dunno where the fuck you got your info from

Probably talking to people who try to claim that ebonics is an acceptable way to communicate.

>Following there "rules" of Grammer stifles the growth of the language.

You call it "growth". I call it "confusion because some people are ignorant of, or choose not to follow, the rules.

What "advancement" is there in language? All I see is confusion when older people don't know what the new slang invented by silly children means. As well as downright misunderstanding caused by people using words incorrectly.

I realize that change can and does occur, but that seems like an undesirable side effect, not something that ought to be embraced and supported.

>trying to apply strict rules to any language is a waste of time that stifles advancement

The written language does indeed have formal rules and those that violate them suffer in many ways because they are placed in the uneducated class and assessed as fit only for those things appropriate to that level of being. Changes to those formal rules for the written language happen very slowly. Simply because Joyce, a master of English grammar, violated the rules for specific literary purposes does not mean you can get away with it without looking retarded. The spoken language changes relatively rapidly, but that's entirely different than claiming there are no formal rules.

However, in no way does linguistic change in either case result in an "advancement."

There are guidelines for writing that need to be followed depending on the situation. Spoken language changing is what we're discussing. While this is technically written word, this situation doesn't warrant proper formatting or the removal of slang.

And no, there aren't universal formal rules, which is why there are arguments over proper apostrophe use and various formal writing formats.
Would you like to take a stab on why the word "downright" exists and why you chose to use it? It's "real" definition and use was to mean literally straight down, but every English speaking person on this board knows you mean it as a synonym for "absolutely"

Step back in time 60 years and what you consider normal polite speech will be viewed no differently than southern English or ebonics.

The slang that becomes a part of everyday life eventually becomes a part of the language. Just as downright and literally changed to have different meanings, new words are created and changed as the language grows.

As an example, "proper" English only has the word "you" for a second person pronoun. Southern English is a dialect that uses the the contraction of you and all as y'all to differentiate between single and multiple people. We generally shit on people who use it, but it's quite literally the only single word or contraction that does what it does in English.

>The slang that becomes a part of everyday life eventually becomes a part of the language

Like I said, I understand that changes do happen. But I don't understand why this is seen as "advancement" or something good as opposed to a change which happens to occur that we are forced to put up with despite its tendency to cause confusion.

Every written language has strict formal rules of grammar. The spoken language even when there is no writing has strict formal rules as well. Those rules are why infants can learn the language. If there were no rules, there would be no pattern and nothing for an infant's brain to assimilate. The written language rules are simply a formal documentation of that pattern at a particular point in time and those that follow them have the advantages of the educated class.