BTW, I shall follow your example on the policing of grammar: One homes (not hones) in on something. For example, pilots, pigeons, and missiles home in on their destinations. Honing, on the other hand, involves whetstones and knives (and, metaphorically, the sharpening of skills).
Sorry. This is not true. Both are acceptable English usage. They are alternative forms and the history of the phrase is disputed and which usage was earliest is disputed as well. EDIT:I do side on the origin being "home in on".
As a prescriptivist, "hone in on" is by far the most widely used and has been used to mean what "home in on" for quite sometime, thus it is Standard English.
Agreed, I've heard and read blasphemic many times.
However, if one can actually show me the authority on the English language and how the authority came to be over the English language I could be convinced. Basically it's a word if we say it's a word. ;o) Otherwise, we need to the see the authority over the entire language and how the authority of the language came into power. If there is no true authority of the language then those who correct it are victims of a delusion that there is an authority over it. Ever xerox anything?
The actual authority over grammar is only in your head, unless of course you are a "subject" of the social delusion or care that people judge you.
Pride is a deadly sin. ;o)
Language is as language does. If you want to be understood by members of a language community, it is best to know the rules. At University I don't sound (or try not to) like I do when talking to folks I live around and vice versa. Doing either would possibly alienate and send the wrong connotations than I would mean. I am fluent in both forms of English.
Rules are developed to help educate folks to better get along within language communities.
I am a descriptivist. I said prescriptivist
earlier. I am both. We all are.
A lot of people here are language / English / word nerds. It's all in fun. At least for me.
And this is pretty much an English language board and there many non-Native speakers, so it ain't bad to occasionally point out poor usage of English. And blasphemic
is certainly poor usage and not accepted as a regionalism, colloquialism, etc. It is an area were it is poor usage, as we already have a widely used adjective / adverb to describe what you are attempting to convey.
Again, I think it is always in good spirit around here. I hope it is received in such a manner as well.