I’m not sure if anyone writing comments like “Here, in America, proper grammar is a must when describing anything and helps to make you appear intelligent to others” is really an American asking to be taken seriously, or just lampooning the literary style of that great nation with gentle irony.

For what its worth, if The Economist is being quoted as a reference source, a quick scan of recent articles in its “Culture” section reveals no examples of “titled”, but several of “entitled”, as in:

“Mr Köver has banned index.hu, Hungary’s most popular news portal, from reporting from the chamber after two of its reporters made a video entitled “Merry Christmas Hungarian democracy”.”

or..

“Now at Crane Kalman Gallery is an exhibition entitled “Women and Art”.”

Fowler’s Modern English Usage simply says that when used “of a book etc” entitled means “given the title of”, seemingly irrespective of who gave it that title , or when. I take it that a book, once given a title, is from then on “entitled”, and should be referred to as such. Fowler seems unaware of the possibility that anyone might think that “titled” would be appropriate in reference to a book. If it were “titled” would we not have to call it “Sir”, or perhaps “Your Lordship”?

(And yes, I see that my typos are even worse typos than those of others in this thread!)

“Another day”

Try ‘The other day’, or ‘One day’, what a bust. Or as the kids say, fail.

Back to entitled vs titled, face it, our language is fluid and is in motion. I really despise “pleaded” instead of the Proper ‘pled’ past tense, and a few others just like it with the past tense using an ‘ed’ when there is a proper word to use, I hate periods too.