Fowler speculated on the origins of this obsession - he called it a superstition - and wrote that, "Some 18th century grammarian made a rule on a quite insufficient induction - as with so many grammatical rules."

And here's the line I love: "Grammatical parrots" wrote Fowler, " have repeated that [so-called rule] from generation to generation." He then moved rather triumphantly to demonstrate the inelegancy resulting from the slavish adherence to the London Times rule:

"Do not say, he wrote, 'Which pond did you fall into?' Instead such absolutists would ask, 'Into which pond did you fall?' Picture," he says, "the poor dripping mortal being frozen into solid ice by this barbarous frigidity". Fowler was good at images, too!

I choose this example for several reasons (and don't misunderstand: I do believe strongly in Standard English).

1. Plain language specialists have to face more than just grammatical parrots. We encounter the parroting of bureaucratese, legalese, medicant and many other varieties of English. These dialects deaden language and encourage an elitist uniformity of style.

2. Fowler's example illustrates the strident opposition to sensibly flexible language use that plain language writers (and Bill Sabin) regularly endorse.

3. Fowler introduces us to a slice of the interdisciplinary pie that provides us with a context for plain language.