I’ve been reading Globish by Robert McCrum. He argues that English has conquered the world as the one-and-only international tongue. However, there is not one English but uncounted variations serving every geography and subculture known to man.
So, is t better to have a pure language with rigid standards and limited usage (French) or an adaptable one that becomes universal (Globish)? We get a lot of economic benefit by having the world using our language. And don’t forget that American English is a bastardization of the real thing.
For example, Free Republic is a subculture that contributes to language evolution. Very few FReepers appreciate grammar and spelling cops. We embrace useful neologisms like “bigly.” I think the writing center would approve.
A bit of both is better. You need standards to enable people to understand one another. Dialects and variations to the standard will always exist, and in fact they can, over time enrich the language somewhat, but you need a guide to keep the variations from diverging too far and thus impede communications. One of the big strengths of English as a language, IMO is that while it has rules, it's still flexible. Another is that we're not to proud to poach other languages for words when we find one that more accurately describe a given thing than what currently exists. I'm sure you've heard of the lengths the French will go to maintain the "purity" of their language. It's one of the things that will make it forever an also-ran amongst global tongues.
Some would say that we don't so much 'borrow' words, as gleefully beat them into submission.
The study of how languages evolve is fascinating to me, but too many linguists tend to pick weird nits and delve into arcania over things that have little to no significance.