We humans are intellectual, you say i.e. having the capacity to understand, from Latin 'intellego' = understand from Latin 'leg-, lect-' = read, and Latin "inter" meaning between, or among. That's true enough. That is what makes our species home sapiens, or 'wise man', after all: we have the ability to understand things, and read between the lines to help do so. In other words to put two and two together. Dialectica.
But you say that you hares prefer to use the term 'ROTFLMSFAO or should it be ROTFFLOFSAO? where we humans use 'STUPID'. Well, if you say so; I'll have to take your word for it, as am not keen to join you in your burrow to verify your assertion, which seems a harmless enough one. I do not know the Latin of these words you say you prefer, as, from what you say, and the fact that they are wholly unpronounceable, they are in hare-speak. The Romans did not converse with hares, but they put them on the menu, where they had no need for a vocabulary, being totally skinned. (The hares, that is, not the Romans. Usually.)
The Latin roots of 'stupid' are stupeo, stupesco, stupidus, stupefacio, stupor, stupiditas, all having meanings to do with 'senseless, stunned (as you lot are in the headlights of an oncoming car), astounded, amazed, stupid and dull.
I have not replied to a cunicular correspondent before. Have you got Wi-Fi in your burrow? Until now I thought you lot just emitted shrill shrieks when alarmed. Certainly the tone of your remarks suggests a shrill shriek, or squeal. Happy hopping, when March comes round.

Now, if you describe us members of homo sapiens sapiens as 'intellectual', how do you describe your own species, caniculus incultus? Meanwhile I have forgotten what this discussion was meant to be about.

I was just wondering what she would have thought of "please action immediately". Middle management types very non-U, for starters, and their garble-speak even worse.

Thanks for that, Warsaw Will. it is all just a matter of taste, isn't it? See Nancy Mitford and others in a very amusing volume "Noblesse Oblige", 1956, sorting out what's what. Another volume dates to the 1970s called "U and Non-U revisited (Richard Buckle). The latter volume costs 1p on the internet, the former considerably more.
They have the answers to the conundra!

By the way, "action" from Latin ago, age-, eg-, act- meaning to do, or indeed act. So "action this" is daft-speak for "do this", really.

Brilliant, Warsaw Will. But "Does anyone nowadays really worry about 'to chair a meeting', 'to host a dinner party', 'to file something', 'to access a file' or 'to contact somebody'." Yes, actually, especially "to access", which I think of as computerese. I might do it to a file, that is all. 'Filing' raises only a Roger Moore as James Bond almost imperceptible flicker of an eyebrow. I think many of these terms are computerese. "To exit" is a particularly fingernails down the blackboard expression, handy for what you do to leave a computer thingy, but when people leave a room do we need to replace a one syllable five letter word 'leave' with a shorter two syllable 'exit' as if the room we are leaving is an imaginary computer space? Is it elegant? Is it quicker? No way! Is it ghastly? Yes! Do the teachers about to leave a meeting enact a Bateman cartoon reaction when the boss says "pick up a copy of my speech as you exit?"
I spot reservations in the tone of your piece, revealed by the use here and there of "but", "nowadays" and "at least", and the admission that it is really business speak, which we all know is horrible. "Incentivise"! Gorge rises! "Prioritise" - vomit!. Why is shorter better? Are we in some kind of rush? Not me, I'm retired, and it's autumn and raining.
Do you know what? I think that the blame for this abominable violence perpetrated upon the English language lies with people who wish to look important and 'in the flow' and busy with 'blue sky thinking' (unaware of what that really means), and thinking 'out of the box' and so, between seeing visions, they employ such terms to try to convey the impression they mix in circles where such business-speak is all the rage. Middle management, in other words. That is their aspiration. Being 'on the ball'. There was an American film about all this in the '50s which I must research: a fellow who had numerous children because it was more efficient, and they all had to have out their appendices when one did, and so did he, their father, for that reason too, and so forth. Efficient and on the ball. Very funny. Balls sums it up, really.
The real movers and shakers in this world do not use such language. Mutti Merkel speaks proper German, Pres. Hollande does proper French, ( the Academie Francaise insists he must), and having tuned in to all the British political parties' leaders' speeches in our UK conference season lately, I am confirmed in my belief. None uses such gruesome 'management-speak' in public. No phrases employed appalled. Journalists were amused by the short sentences and repetitions, and said so, but the carefully prepared language of all four (if you include Mr Farage who spoke about UKIP to a meeting in Manchester) was to my ear fluent and painless. I am sure President Obama, too, well deserves his reputation for making splendid speeches, but I cannot vouch for this as I have heard none.

Dorset County Council, by printing "PLEASE ACTION IMMEDIATELY" on their letter to me getting me to register my right to vote, have left me amused but by no means bemused. I can just picture the car driven by the suit who was the author of that instruction. Enough! And I bet you can tell that I too am not one of those keen to reduce the number of words I use, either.

Gift as a verb - my Scottish granny who lived for years in America in the 1940s and '50s used to use this term sometimes, when distributing presents to us, her numerous progeny. I thought she got the 'gifting' word from Scotland and her generosity with gift giving from the USA.
Now today I was appalled to see another noun used as a verb: action. My registration papers as a voter arrived in the post with the instruction "please action at once" and I thought at first that what was missing was a hyphen, to separate the Please! from a description of what was required: action at once (as in Churchill's wartime instructions to civil servants and military top brass, 'action this day' on written orders). Then the horror of it struck me: action was being used here as an imperative verb. By British officialdom. They meant "please act at once'" as in "please deal with this at once". Where did they pick up this "action at once" idea? I was reminded of my Scottish granny and her Americanisms, and wonder whether to blame them. It sure did prompt me to act at once and register so that I could dispose of the offending instructions.
Oh no! Did Churchill mean "action" as an imperative? HE had an American mother, after all! I always thought he used it as a noun in this expression.

Great point. I don't know what a MHO eluding argument is, but I get the drift. Your last bit suggests you should then finish with "just saying"!

What do you call the phenomenon which occurs when someone coughs? Or sneezes? The name of the action is a noun. I use 'cough',' sneeze'. What do you call these actions, Truttadore? This is not a case of using a verb (or verbs) as a noun, they are nouns all along, surely? They are examples of the verb and the noun being homonyms, surely? "If you think ... then you have another think coming" was coined as a joke, of course.

I guess the assertion "I'm just saying" is a bit like the preface "I'm not being rude, but ..." and then saying something rude. Quite daft, really. It is a conversational habit in my neck of the woods. A bit like the current mania for people to say "if I'm honest", or "I have to be honest" or "I'll be honest with you". You want to call back "No! Lie, like you always do!, go on, treat yourself!" when you this daft verbal litter spattering the conversation.

Warsaw Will
excellent arguments. Incontrovertible. But: you acknowledge that there is a subjunctive form, and because certain people, like those traditional grammarians, will expect it, as you say, then I say that even if we do not normally use it, we should know it so that we are equipped to use it when it is suitable.
My example of the brown envelope and the money was indeed half-baked as I neglected to put in the other bit. The money in brown envelope usually denotes nefarious activity, such as bribery, so I was hinting at a politician denying culpability, as in
If I left money in the brown envelope that it wasn't meant as a bribe (open condition, maybe I left it). Both verbs indicative.
If I were to have left ... I would ... (closed condition - denies I left it). Both verbs subjunctive.
And thank you for clearing up that thing about the 18th century prescriptivists trying to force English into a Latin mould, and the split infinitives and so forth. That is not my intention in promoting Latin. Indeed you acknowledge that it is mighty handy when attacking Polish, and I would observe that Russian and Czech have numerous cases (Russian 8), and German manages four,(nominative, accusative, genitive and dative) requiring a grid of 24 words (many are duplicates) for 'the', for example: der, die, das, den, des, dem all mean 'the' and learning them, armed with Latin, is a piece of cake. Xhosa and Zulu and all their cousins in the Nguni language set have no fewer than 16 noun groups (rather Monty Pythonishly, groups 13 and 14 have no words in them, rather like 'no rule 7' in that Australian sketch). All this was sorted out in the 19th C by, I bet, a European clergyman equipped with Latin. I shall Google it later and see, as my textbook on Xhosa is vague about it. Armed with the experience of Latin declensions you can embark upon a study of almost any language. The classical Buddhist language of Pali, in India 2,000 years ago, has the identical endings to 'mensa, mensam' in Latin for the same purpose of nominative and accusative subject and object, feminine nouns. The masculine ones are not identical to those of -us -um or -* -em in Latin, but then -* in Latin indicates strange endings for 3rd declension nouns, so Pali too, so they echo one another That would be because these languages have the same Indo-European root.
Armed with Latin a visit to Spain shows very quickly that learning Spanish takes a few days only, and Italian the same. Spanish vocabulary in places proved tricky, so I asked some Spanish children who were learning Latin how they found it so easy, and how come some Spanish words are nothing like Latin when so many are the same - the answer is that the tough ones are derived from Arabic (the Moors, of course!!).
All great fun, and yes, I did nip out to the pub between the last piece and this one. And while the subjunctive does belong in book 3 of a 3-book set for learning a language, whether it is widely 'used' or not it must be included in a sound and complete study of a language, including English.