Question

In what body must the impeachment of a federal official begin?Choose one of the topics listed below or a topic of your choice that is related to language issues and usage:

double negatives
"ain't" (See the controversy regarding the labeling of "ain’t" in Webster's Third New International Dictionary.)
incorrect or nonstandard verb forms
frequently confused words (fewer/less, infer/imply)
use of around and on to replace more specific prepositions such as about
Write an essay on the language issue you chose in which you explain the background of the issue and take a stance on regarding the usage rules related to the issue. Be sure your essay addresses the following points:

Explain the rule or language issue you chose.
Discuss if there are times when a language rule can be broken or changed.
Explain the views of language experts on this topic. Do they agree or conflict? Is the usage rule controversial?
Include the data on usage you gather from your interactions with friends or by listening to people on the radio or on TV.
Take a clear stance about the usage rules related to the issue you chose. If possible, specify which rules seem preferable in specific contexts. Clarify whether you think following the rule is important and under which circumstances it's best to follow the rule.
Insert your essay in the space provided.

Answer 1

Answer:The issue I decided to expound on is much of the time confounded words. The language legends of that time simply believed that English should be viewed as a cognizance. Somebody who concentrates on profound into the English Language and making sense of their view on these confusing words past would be capable. However I could never modify it, I accept that a language rule can be broken or changed. Dr. Johnson "The individuals who have been convinced to respect my plan, expect that it ought to fix our language and shut down those modifications which time and chances have until now been endured to make it without resistance.

With this outcome I will admit that I complimented myself for some time; yet presently start to expect that I have reveled assumptions which neither explanation nor experience can legitimize." Despite the fact that he was against the language transforming; he realized it would never be halted. "Like it or not, language is continuously changing and English will keep on doing as such in numerous imaginative and — to some maybe — disappointing ways." Jonathan Quick once said, "some strategy ought to be considered for finding out and fixing our language, everlastingly it is better a language ought not be entirely great, than that it ought to never-endingly change" from exploring and perusing his portions I accept his perspective on language changing was acknowledgment.

I would concur with his assertions, however not totally on the grounds that person of a typical psyche would change the language to help just them and their childish ways. Samuel Johnson likewise concurred with Quick somewhat, attempting to save the language. They just maintained that the English language should thrive and improve. Analyzing the two sides of the contention I'm simply left to presume that it is better for language to change. On the off chance that we attempted to stop the movement of language, we wouldn't have the option to get to the powerful in all that is managing language.

Language likewise changes inconspicuously at whatever point speakers come into contact with one another. It is basically impossible that it very well may be. I'm just concurring with it since I know halting the progression is unrealistic.

Explanation: its the answer above, I just switched the words around so it doesn't get plagiarized

Answer 2

The issue I chose to write about is frequently confused words. The language legends of that time only wanted English to be seen as a coherence. Someone who studies deep into the English Language and its past would be able to explain their view on these perplexing words. Though I would never alter it, I believe that a language rule can be broken or changed. Dr. Johnson “Those who have been persuaded to think well of my design, require that it should fix our language and put a stop to those alterations which time and chances have hitherto been suffered to make it without opposition.

With this consequence I will confess that I flattered myself for a while; but now begin to fear that I have indulged expectations which neither reason nor experience can justify.” Even though he was against the language changing; he knew it could never be stopped. “Like it or not, language is always changing and English will continue to do so in many creative and — to some perhaps — frustrating ways.” Jonathan Swift once said, “some method should be thought of for ascertaining and fixing our language, forever it is better a language should not be wholly perfect, than that it should be perpetually changing” from researching and reading his excerpts I believe his view of language changing was acceptance.

I would agree with his statements, but not completely because someone of a common mind would change the language to benefit only them and their selfish ways. Samuel Johnson also agreed with Swift to some extent, trying to preserve the language. They only wanted the English language to prosper and change for the better. Examining both sides of the argument I am only left to conclude that it is better for language to change. If we tried to stop the progression of language then we would not be able to get to the next level in everything that's dealing with language.

Language also changes very subtly whenever speakers come into contact with each other. There is no way it could be. I am only agreeing with it because I know it's not possible to stop the progression.

Step-by-step explanation: