The French farmers' bank, Credit Agricole, anticipating the euro's arrival has now taken to giving account holders their balances in the euro-currency, probably as a way of blunting the French people's notorious dislike of their neighbours, especially the Germans This is heady stuff. All capitalism is about self- interest; but that self-interest can be defined and satisfied in different ways. If the American style is capitalism without constraint, and the Australians bring us capitalism with cojones, we may be seeing a new European contribution to 21st century global economics: capitalism with a conscience. Is it now time, as Dr Strangelove might say, to stop worrying and learn to love the transnationals?. "Refute" already seems to have been bludgeoned into a new meaning of "reject" instead of "disprove" and the spelling of "choose" is gradually being twisted into "chose" while conversely "lose" is becoming "loose".Adverbs are being repeatedly knocked down and stamped on with adjectives, so that, for example, things are now done "quicker" instead of "more quickly".The gerund is being robbed of its proper descriptors; thus we now see expressions like "him doing" something instead of "his doing".Then we have the crude battering of object into subject as in "Me and my mate ..." (followed by a verb) instead of "My mate and I ..." As if in atonement for that aberration, we see ludicrous attempts at self-effacement by the use of "myself" when "I" or "me", as the case may be, is what is meant.Apostrophes suffer multiple sins of omission and commission. Something which can only be "unique" will be described as "very unique". Similarly "less" is to be used where "fewer" should be found.

We shall in future be saying "Can we?" when we mean "May we?" and the word "whom", if not already buried, soon will be, with "who" taking its place, regardless of what case applies. Respect for equal opportunities dictates acceptance of the demise of feminine nouns - for example actresses are apparently now actors. It is possible even to adjust to topsy-turvy alterations such as that whereby people now find decisions are "down" and not "up" to them. All those changes are born of ignorance but in their case ignorance is almost bliss.What do seem objectionable are the attacks on grammar by the ignoramuses who wield the literary equivalent of a baseball bat. Some of the miscreants can be found at the addresses of tabloid newspapers, advertising agencies or W1A 0AA (Parliament). Others, alas, come from what were believed to be better homes, such as the BBC and the broadsheets. Whoever the instigators, the sad thing is that the many weaker brethren among us tend to pick up their bad habits.As a result of their misdeeds, it now appears that no distinction is to be made between "may" and "might", between "shall" and "will", between "either" and "each", between "criterion" and "criteria" and between "phenomenon" and "phenomena".

In any case the Oxford University Press has now confirmed that those usages do not have a criminal persona after all. Nor can there be much regret over what might be regarded as organic changes in the language. For example, it seems fairly natural for the likes of "stadia" and "referenda" to have become "stadiums" and "referendums". Likewise the compression of "under way" into "underway" probably has respectable precedents. We can overlook petty infringements like split infinitives or the use of conjunctions to begin sentences. Crimes of violence are increasing - and not just those against the person.