"Which"/"That"

Opening with indeed, a chilling thought, "What if our English teachers were wrong?" The debate article "Which Language Rules to Flout. Or Flaunt?" captured my interest very quickly. But first, the definition for two key words.

Descriptivist: describes language as it is already used.
Prescriptivist: focuses on how language should be used. 

I can't help but immediately agree with Robert Lane Greene's point of view. Very much of a descriptivist, he arguments how language evolves and changes, for good. He also states the obvious, people might already start complaining that he's permissive (in terms of vulgar, inappropriate, or inaccurate language usage, conjugation, etc.)

But I believe this isn't bad. Being permissive in terms of language is inevitable. There's no simple way of convincing the world to speak properly, to use language as it was designed. People adapt it to work as they wish and as they understand. This is how language evolves. Only language and grammar geeks truly care about the truth on word usage, verb conjugation, and everything that the term "language usage" envelops. 

He talks about Strunk and White's very famous "Elements of Style", which I even have. It's basically, the book that teaches you about the proper usage of the english language. Greene comically states, "White doesn't agree with White. As the linguist Geoff Pullum noticed, White used 'which' in the 'wrong' way in his essay 'Death of a Pig'"

Even those who seem to be strict about language usage, make "mistakes". This is how language evolves. 

But then comes Bryan A. Garner's prescriptivist (excuse the label) ways. He's pretty convinced that that both, prescriptivists and descriptivists, can coexist in nature, if: "linguists and writers like you would stop demonizing all prescriptivists and start acknowledging that the reputable ones have always tries to base their guidance on sound descriptions."

But I can't agree with this. They have to be demonized. And Greene, I believe, agrees with this demonization (with a less harsh term, maybe "correction") of their inflexibility of language. There's simply no way one could define every single grammar rule. We will never know what the reader truly means unless he expressed himself through the ways that he finds available, in this case, language usage flexibility. Such as Greene's Matthew example. 

There's the which, versus that. "That," being very specific. "Which," being somewhat descriptive. But Greene gives a thorough explanation on that, through his Matthew example. 

But I still believe he's right. Language adapts, language changes, language is flexible. Otherwise, we would still speak Elizabethan. 

There's an interesting point Garner makes. As he states, "Some language is indeed 'disgraceful'... as judged against educated speech." Which is true. Everyone often relates your level of education, with your writing and talking skills. Even I do. There has to be a moderation, as to the extent to which this modification of language reaches. It shouldn't seem to be absolute horror. It should be readable. But some moderate adjustments, that fit "correctly" in what you're trying to express, I think are fine.