However, it seemed to me that some of the commentators were more comfortable with the construction than others.

“An historic” is idiomatic when the words are run together and the stress falls on the second syllable of historic. It becomes self-conscious and unidiomatic when the speaker pauses after the “an” and then puts the stress on the first syllable of historic. Some of the commentators did that.

They were being correct though, despite the awkwardness, and I commend them for it.

First I would like to say that I agree with your point – or what I am inferring as your point – that it is possible to write in the manner that most people now speak and still use proper english. Colloquialisms are fine, but poor grammar is not. It isn’t necessary to use the formal style in order to be grammatically correct, and in many cases being overly formal can make your words seem stiff and awkward when being read by others, since most people do not speak in the formal style.

As for televisions shows, although I believe that there are instances where a character speaks poorly because the character is supposed to be ignorant (a sadly poor example for others but alas, reflective of reality), I’m fairly certain that the seemingly rampant use of poor english is due to poorly educated writers on those shows. Last year for Christmas we gave a donation to DonorsChoose.org, which raises money for under-funded school projects, after which we received a batch of handwritten thank-you letters from the students in the class we chose, as well as one from the teacher. These were young kids, so while I was impressed with their genuinely sincere gratitude, I wasn’t surprised to see spelling and grammar errors in their letters. I was, however, shocked to see how poorly their teacher’s letter was constructed! How can our students learn the proper use of english when their teachers are unable to lead by example?

I realize that for every poorly educated teacher there are likely dozens, if not hundreds, of excellent teachers, but I suspect that this is a creeping blight that will ultimately spread as under-educated students graduate and go into fields such as advertising, journalism, or other fields where their words will impact other young and impressionable minds.

I know that is already happening to some degree – watching television is not as enjoyable as it was years ago – I can get past an ignorant character’s skewering of the language, but all too often I find myself thinking something along the lines of “hmm….I believe he meant to use the word ‘perspective’ there instead of ‘perception’”. It’s clear that writers for film and television, as well as our news reporters and many others who appear on television, have lost the ability to use words correctly, or even to choose the correct word. The distraction lessens the entertainment value.

I can’t think of any argument that I’ve made in this post or any other to suggest that I would fault Shaw for the deliciously low dialogue he puts into the mouth of Eliza Doolittle. Clean up her grammar, enunciation and pronunciation in the first act, and the play would be pointless.

When I picture the DWT audience, I imagine speakers and writers of widely-differing backgrounds in English. Comments indicate that we have readers whose expertise matches or exceeds my own. I’m glad they enjoy our content.

But I’m not writing for experts. And I’m not writing for the “anything goes” crowd.

My posts are intended for people who, (like Eliza), have practical reasons for wanting to speak and write a standard form of English. My imagined reader wants to be able to tell the difference between non-standard English and usage that is commercially and socially acceptable according to middle class educational standards.