Jim: "I’m mainly suggesting the words are interchanged so often (by those that don’t seem to know the definitions) that their distinction is lost."

Presumably by "interchanged" you simply meant misspelled. I seriously doubt that the distinction between the meanings of "they're" and "there" is lost, even on the most illiterate writer.

"And please don’t use the excuse that it’s normal communication, with that reasoning 'they’re' and 'there' will soon be synonymous.

They'll never be synonymous no matter how you spell them.

Perhaps you meant homographic?

"Is there not a redundancy in the use of 'got' with 'have'?"

No. Otherwise the speaker would not have used it.

And, regarding "gift" as a verb, I agree with a few other commentators here: it quite clearly means something different from plain old "give".

Obviously "seldomly" is a word; if it were not, it wouldn't exist.

My guess is that sometime in the 20s-30s the hyphen was viewed more and more as a cumbersome and superfluous fillip and thus dispensed with.

We're seeing a similar to-and-fro with "e-mail" and "email" (I use the latter myself).

Use "who".

"Whom" smacks of overcorrection (the tendency to overcompensate when a speaker is unsure of a grammatical concept)..

I use "email". On those occasions where this word starts a sentence, I write "Email".

Dare I risk the label of being a pedant and propose that all 26 letters in English are silent?

After all, they are simply a means to represent the language in writing.

"Perhaps instead of being rude and insulting you could explain your point of view. A good English word is 'prat'."

Now who's being insulting? The idea of a "pure" English language is silly and, as one poster noted, smacks of more than a little xenophobia.

It's the sort of thing that once had an appeal among certain people with dodgy views on ethnicity and race.