phrase usage - Who decides whether something is standard English or not?

During a chat with a native English-speaking friend, he used the phrase "get on with it". I asked him about it, and he said it is a slang phrase. I looked it up online, and this phrase shows up on Urban Dictionary, so it seems my friend is correct in saying that it is slang. But who decides whether a word or phrase is proper English or slang?

Answer

SHORT VERSION:
Everybody, and nobody.

LONG VERSION:
Some countries have formal institutions which lay down rules which state what language is considered proper. English does not. All speakers and writers get a vote, and may exercise that vote as many times as they wish, both by speaking or writing themselves and by hearing and reading and approving what others speak or write. It is the most completely democratic institution in the world.

This is not to say there are no rules. There are, many thousands of them. Language at bottom is nothing but rules.

But the rules govern within larger and smaller communities. The rule which says that the present indicative form of the verb be which is used with the pronoun he shall be is is very widespread, but there are substantial communities where be is employed in some or all circumstances. By contrast, the community which maintains the rule that shall shall be employed in the first person where will is called for in the second and third persons is small and growing continually smaller. And the community which holds that my brother shall be referred to and addressed as Quid is quite small: probably only nine people.

So when you ask this question—which is an important one, and passionately debated—you must also specify ‘correct to whom’? To whom are you speaking or writing?

And when you have specified to whom you will have answered your question. They determine what is correct English.

phrase usage - Totes my goats! What the heck does this mean?

There has been that annoying Sprint commercial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRibRj770J8) on the TV lately where Malcolm McDowell screams out "Totes my goats!". So I've googled that but was not satisfied with the explanation from the urban dictionary and sites alike. So what is it anyway?

word choice - For these reasons vs for those reasons

Should I use "these" or "those" to refer to previously mentioned arguments? I can give some context:

Paragraph 2: Argument A

Paragraph 3: Argument B

Paragraph 4: Argument C

Paragraph 5: For th_se reasons I would like to apply to this scholarship, since.......

Answer

In your example, you probably should us "these", but both are acceptable.

• For these reasons must be near to the reasons


• For those reasons must be after the reasons.

Good:

• "I'm poor. I'm sick. For these reasons, I'm not going to the party."


• "I'm not going to the party for these reasons: I'm poor and I'm sick."


• "Chapter 1 explained the history. Chapter 2 explained the current situation. Chapter 3 explained the consequences. For those reasons, we can't accept this policy change."


• "Chapter 1 explained the history. Chapter 2 explained the current situation. Chapter 3 explained the consequences. For these reasons, we can't accept this policy change."

Bad:

• "I'm not going to the party for those reasons: I'm poor and I'm sick."

phrase usage - Starting a sentence with "would that..."

In one of my favorite episodes of the TV show Community, "Conspiracy Theories and Interior Design", one of the characters says the following line:

Would that this desk were a time desk.

In the context of the episode, the meaning is clear: "I wish this desk were a time desk." The character is quoting a terribly written novel, and part of the humor is the combination of the attempted literary language ("Would that this desk were...") and the awful subject matter ("a time desk").

Here's my question:

Can you actually start a sentence with "Would that..." to mean "I wish that..."?

Is this phrase actually literary, or does it just sound literary and is actually incorrect?

Answer

To my surprise, I found brief explanations on Would that ...! in two of my grammar books.

In Collins COBUILD English Grammar, under entry 4.213 (regret: 'would that'),

In very old-fashion English, 'would' is used without a subject to express a wish that a situation might be different, or to express regret that something did not happen in the past. 'Would' is followed by a 'that'-clause.
'Are they better off now than they were two years ago?'--'Would that they were'
Would that the developments had been so easy.
[...]

In Longman English Grammar, under entry 11.42.4 'Would' and 'could' after 'wish' and 'if only',

[...]
Wishes expressed with would at the beginning of a sentence have either become obsolete (Would that it were true!) or have become fossilized idioms (Would to God I Knew! Would to God I had known!)

So, we can actually start a sentence with Would that ...!. But one grammar book refers to it as "old-fashion", and another refers to it as either "obsolete" or "have become fossilized idioms".

usage - NumerICs vs numerALs, what is the difference if any?

I looked up MW but failed to see whether they are interchangeable.

On a daily basis I find difficulties in adjective forming, so I guess this is just one more of the -IC versus -AL dilemmas, no?

How do I render a cylindrical world space onto a flat, 2D view port in Unity?

The question is just a logical extension of this question.

So, how should I render a cylindrical world space onto a flat, 2D view port in Unity?

Thank you.

word choice - Tampered vs Broken vs Teared

I recently bought a book from an online site. Some papers were “broken”. I want to send feedback to the online retailer. How can I say it correctly: “tampered” or “broken” or “teared”? Please help me to create a feedback mail.

Answer

Neither broken nor tampered make sense in your case. You would use torn, which is the correct form of your suggested "teared".

If you take a piece of paper and rip it in half, that piece of paper is torn. The paper is also torn if only small pieces are missing, or even if the paper remains connected after the tear.

From the dictionary definition of broken you would think it fits in your situation:

broken, adj.

1. Forcibly separated into two or more pieces; fractured: a broken arm; broken glass.

But it doesn't. Note that the two examples are of items that would snap or shatter. A vase can be broken, but a book can't... A book can be ripped or torn or damaged, but it simply isn't idiomatic to say it's broken. This is what comes to mind when using broken in this sense:

As for tampered, you definitely don't want to use that.

tampered, v. intr.

1. To interfere in a harmful manner: tried to tamper with the decedent's will; tampering with the timing mechanism of the safe.

When you say something has been tampered with (note the with, that's required) that means that you are accusing the company of intentionally modifying/changing/damaging the product before sending it to you. I don't imagine this is what you think happened, so I don't think this is the word you're looking for.

So, for a sentence to explain what you need to tell them...

Some of the pages in my book are torn.

So torn would work fine, but most people would probably just say the book was damaged, and then add further detail if they thought it necessary:

When my book arrived it was damaged; several of the pages were torn, and [insert anything else wrong with the book here].