I agree strongly with what @truthbeckons says here. I think the issue in question here is the purpose of the language, and language has many purposes. @truthbeckons is treating language as a vehicle for art. This is appropriate for a creative writer, and I agree with it. He and I are here on this forum because we're interested in creative writing, and hence in the forms of language use that facilitate art. This is strong motivation to stretch the "rules" of grammar and to (sometimes) break them outright. For lack of a better term, I'll call this advanced language. @socialleper sees the purpose of language as basic communication. As he points out, most users of language will be doing so to write emails and memos, and that's pretty much it. If they can do so with a minimum of mistakes, so they don't embarrass themselves, well, that's good enough for their purposes. K-12 teachers teach that kind of language use to that kind of user. I'll call this basic language. Basic language is of little use to a writer like Nabokov, McCarthy, Woolf, or Samuel R. Delany. They use advanced language, and twist and extend it to make it fit their purposes. The majority, the email-and-memo writers, don't recognize advanced use as conforming to what their teachers told them, so they are inclined to object to it. The email-and-memo writers are like painting contractors hired to paint a house. They'll likely paint the walls a solid color, something anonymous and inoffensive. This paint job will serve its purpose, though, so long as its purpose is the protection of the wooden walls from the elements. The creative writers are more like muralists, using the walls as giant canvasses on which they paint works of art. These murals do more than protect; they also dazzle. Dazzlers have their place in the universe, too.