As used in the statement “I’m vegan” the word ‘vegan’ is an internalized modifier that implies a certain behavior of the subject. But, as your comment illustrates, this creates problems when persistency of that implied behavior is disrupted. The solution? De-interalize the modifier:
“I adhere to a vegan diet unless no such options are available.”
Insofar as all standards of beauty are socially constructed, I guess. But not all of the things I like are archaic or formally correct. I quite like any number of regionalisms and slang terms, for instance. Seeing as I’m a foreigner and thus really don’t have a natural accent or idiolect, I tend to treat all the regional dialects and accents of English as a sort of large buffet and, so, find myself enjoying the accents of the North of England, for instance, or the rural American south.
I will admit to really liking how American English has, in certain quarters, not only reinvented the T-V distinction with you/y’all but has even started inflecting for the extension of the plural pronoun with all y’all which I find fascinating. This, incidentally, is an excellent example of something which is, formally speaking, absolutely a solecism but, as far as I’m concerned, enhances both the beauty and expressiveness of language.
Well, as to rules and beautiful English, not all rule-following produces beauty, nor does all rule-breaking diminish it. However, I would put it to you that to break a rule and by doing so enhance language, you need to be absolutely aware of the rule and break it on purpose at just the right time. Like that one famous case of tense disagreement in Catcher in the Rye (“He’s dead now.”). It’s a mistake, sure enough, because the whole book is in past tense, but it is exceedingly unlikely that the author made the error accidentally.
You can say that ugliness comes from carelessness both in the application and elision of rules. After all, highly formally correct English in the bureaucratic mode won’t strike anyone as beautiful while a labored-upon sentence of ‘incorrect’ English can be stunningly beautiful. Most of the mistakes snobs rag on about are mistakes of carelessness more than ignorance. Of a cavalier attitude to language.
As for a standards body, don’t get me wrong, please. I wasn’t advocating for it. Personally, I think a standards body can do good work in, for instance, providing a standard that allows everyone, no matter their social class, to speak ‘correctly’ and thus kneecap classism. However, given the sheer extent of English this is impractical. I mean, it’s not only spoken in several huge countries as the native tongue but it is also the de facto international auxiliary language (Sorry Esperantists, your language is in another castle) which means that you’d need an international body and the odds of its recommendations being followed are effectively nil.
Thank you for the implied compliment. 
But, no, I was aided by the text-only nature of this communication channel. Were this all spoken you’d have rumbled me as a Devious Foreign Person instantly due to my vaguely-pan-European accent that’s been described by my Anglophone friends as, variously, ‘that one lecturer you had at Uni,’ ‘Bond villain,’ and ‘Christoph Waltz on novocaine.’
Three hundred and twenty four comments tells me grammar still rocks!
Yay! I love words.
That’s a nice way to put it, and i’d generally agree.
I would say often, but not always. A favorite example of this is Amos Tutuola. He’s a Nigerian writer who wrote what’s often described as the first (great) African Vernacular novel. So basically Tutuola had some formal education, six years of it, in English. And through his working career certainly had plenty of exposure to what might be called bureaucratic English. When he started writing fiction he opted to write entirely in Nigerian English as it was spoken by Nigerians. Rather than in Yuruba. Or, as was the fashion with Black African writers at the time, in more formalized European language. Most of those works written by more educated writers, in more rigidly formalized language have been forgotten. They generally aren’t considered very good, and aren’t generally considered what anyone would call beautiful. Tutuola’s works are among the most influential things published since the 1950’s, world wide. Forgive me if you’re familiar with any of that, its just nice to lay things out for bystanders.
Its debatable how familiar Tutuola was with formal British English grammar and conventions. In terms of the nitty gritty. Like I said he did get an education of the sort that would focus on those things. And he did work in a field that would require familiarity with some pretty strict English (apparently). But its not as if he had a lot of rigorous instruction on language, or could be said to be “absolutely aware” of every rule and convention he was discarding or violating when he wrote his stories as the people around him spoke. It was definitely a deliberate decision to write things this way though. I’ve read excerpts from personal letters, and later statements and non-fiction bits from the guy. And he could certainly write any damn well way pleased if he felt like it. And later in life he seemed pretty enthused about the subject.
Then you’ve got guys like Woody Guthrie. Who came from an OK background, but down to some shit circumstance seems to have lacked for all or most education. He learned to play instruments by ear, and cut his song writing and poetry skills by basically trial and error. Spoke, wrote and sang in a messy Okie vernacular. Again some indication of awareness of formal convention, and rejection of it. And he wrote some of the most persistent, beloved, best regarded turns of phrase in all of American language. All of it grammatically apocalyptic.
So I’d say the issue is less about absolutely understanding and education in the particulars of what you’re trying to subvert. Than in just awareness and appreciation of language. How it works, how it varies. That there are rules. In my two examples that awareness probably comes with a base level of education. But I doubt that’s entirely neccisary. It would depend on what you’re trying to do. You might need absolute understanding of the formal strictures to accomplish a particular thing. I don’t think Joyce (who I hate with a fiery passion) happens with out that. But a more intuitive understanding could arrise simply from noticing that guy done talks different from us’n.
That’s another lovely way to put it. And I think its what brought me to that last bit. You have to give a shit, and have a reason. Disregard for language is always ugly. Whether its rigid adherence to formality at the expense of ideas, or sloppy assemblage across the board.
I think it has its utility, and generally is sort of a good idea. It just purely situational. The mess we have with no one authority in English is, I think, nearly ideal. You have a body that makes sure all the lawyers are writing the same way. A couple for journalists. A standard for science. Where its needed. I can loosely see the utility in maybe having a standard set at the national level. But anything above that is going to clash badly with regional dialect. Palm Wine Drinkard is more beautiful for being written in the language it is. Not less. I have a good friend who was born and raised till the age of 13 in Jamaica. He’s more comfortable, more clever, more fun, and more interesting, warmer and more understood when 3 beers get him talking in Jamaican English than he is when he’s watching himself to carefully speak “American”. Though I’ll admit to finding it difficult to parse in an Email.
What about someone who is vegan except for honey, or eats vegan but hasn’t gotten rid of their favorite leather boots?
Earth: Mostly Vegan.
Is there anything that’s not the fault of white people?
I think there’s a comma missing in the Shatner example
I’m a grammar enthusiast who writes and edits for pay sometimes. Once, after I delivered a commission to a prominent RPG publisher, they wrote back to say they were just “fixing the grammatical errors.” Imagine my surprise!
When I saw their version, every single contraction had been unpacked. Every don’t, it’s and they’d had become do not, it is and they would, etc. The flow had been brutalised; it was the most absurd sub-editing I’ve ever been subject to, and boy, I’ve had some stinkers.
It’s like that “Teach them kerning” cartoon that comes up here. The hardest part of being a grammar nut is being “corrected”…
Ah, good point. With this massive thread it’s easy to see how that works now. Thanks.
I’m sure all the important languages have one. 
Vegan diet but wears leather boots: "I adhere to a vegan diet."
Only animal product eaten is honey: “The only animal product I eat is honey.”
In general, describing a person by their actions usually frees you from a lot of problems imposed by internalized modifiers or nouns. I abide by this approach whenever objectivity and precision feel slightly out of reach using conventional expressions.
The Chinese in Tibet?
Thanks! Those responses make a lot of sense.
F, T, F, Y.
Must. Not. Point. Out…
Too late.
I hate myself.
These guys… maybe?
