PROFESSOR Simon Horobin obviously, correctly affirms that language changes – take note, Peter Unsworth, Oxford’s answer to Noam Chomsky.

However, accents aside, do we necessarily “accept that people have different ways of pronouncing words”, in contrast to our usual rejection of written variations?

“Again”, “often”, “economics”, and the like, may well have long-established valid alternatives but I cringe on hearing “integral” or “mischievous” stressed on the second syllable, though they may soon join “communal”, for instance, in the former category, as “despicable” apparently once did.

The professor asks: “If people start to spell ‘accommodation’ with one ‘m’, then might we say that its spelling has changed?”

Well, many already have and we tend not to. Though, if a significant majority of well-educated individuals did, that could be a different matter, even if the revised orthography awkwardly conflicted with at least some cognate terms and the noun’s etymology could be obscured, to the possible detriment of native and other pupils.

The learned don deems apostrophes to be potentially redundant stylistic conventions but accepting an invitation to a colleague’s sons’ – rather than son’s – birthday party may more concretely impact on his bank balance.

As for “spelling changes radically on the internet”, what kind of a yardstick is that gigantic, ever-expanding two-edged sword? Evolution should not be confused with anarchy, which could lead to considerable unintelligibility, if not far worse.

Lastly, a child’s exciting essay should self-evidently not be dismissed because of poor spelling, grammar, or punctuation but these should clearly be considered when assessing.

DAVID DIMENT

Riverside Court

Oxford