Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post

And what about ... ummm ... Geoffrey Archer. He's sold millions of books, so he qualifies as an arbiter of language by your criterion. Yet no-one would call him a skilled wordsmith: common wordmonger would be the best he could hope for. He could never be accepted as a guardian of our language's integrity. If he were a heart surgeon, he would perform one simple type of operation only, with a few minor developments from time to time. He would never improve, but he would always be among the elite.

Dear MMI,

Not to say you're pureeing your metaphors, but there is a difference between language and story telling. Mr. Archer’s success at book sales hardly qualify him as an elite arbitrator of the English language, rather it makes him a popular, perhaps even elite, teller of stories, and a very specific type of story at that.
If you seek populism as your determinant then turn to William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White as the Arbitrator of Language in the USof A, they have undoubtedly sold more copies of books on the subject of grammar and style than any I know of. That would, make them the physicians of our languages integrity, at least in a populist venue.

You’ll be happy to know that the French have a system to end this discussion. The Académie française, founded in 1620 has developed a system to preserve the purity and integrity of the French language. In a truly republican feeling of fraternity all language disputes can be resolved.
The Académie consists of forty members, known as immortels (immortals). New members are elected by the members of the Académie itself. Académicians hold office for life, but they may be removed for misconduct. The body has the task of acting as an official authority on the language; it is charged with publishing an official dictionary of the language.That is how "Television" became a french word back in 1960 ya know...

Yours
Mad Lews