@AnWulf - fair comment when it comes to vernacular dialogue. Shakespeare only used 'between you and' once, at least in the First Folio, and this was from Antonio, the educated 'hero' of the Merchant of Venice, and in a letter, what's more. There are also examples of this usage was in Restoration drama, but it seems to have largely died out since then, at least till modern times, although apparently Mark Twain used quite regularly until corrected.

As much as Shakespeare might have been writing for entertainment, the fact remains that he is often seen as the greatest writer in the English language and a paradigm of good English. Good as some of them may, I can't see film scripts being made a compulsory part of the English syllabus in every British school quite yet.

Oops, something not quite parallel there - 'who haven't the slightest interest in complaining, or desire to complain, about ...'.

@jayles - you could add 'neither of / either of' and 'none of' to your list. Both formally take a singular verb, but are often used informally with a plural verb:

'Neither of them are coming'
'None of my friends have even heard of them'

"Neither of and either of are followed by a plural noun or pronoun and a singular or plural verb. A plural verb is more informal:Neither of my parents speaks/speak a foreign language." Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

"When you use none of with a plural noun or pronoun, or a singular noun referring to a group of people or things, you can use either a singular or a plural verb. The singular form is used in a formal style in British English:None of the trains is/are going to London" Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

How times change! - I've just come across this, from a grammar book for British schools, 'English Observed - Common Errors in Written English', by Lancelot Oliphant, published in 1955.

" 'They didn’t use to do it.'
This is old-fashioned, but not incorrect in conver­sation. In written work it is better avoided. Write, ‘They usedn’t to do it’, or, ‘They used not to do it’. Note, however, that ‘didn’t used’ is wrong.' "

I accept that in more formal written work, 'used not to do it' is probably more common than contracted 'didn't use to do it' (they're about neck-and-neck in Ngram). But nowadays, I would say that it is 'usedn't to do it' that is seen as old-fashioned.

@Brus - for various reasons, it's possible that some native speakers don't get that much teaching in verb tenses and their construction - this comes so naturally in spoken language that it might have been thought unnecessary to concentrate on (I'm only surmising, not defending). Which has led some native speakers to write modal perfect constructions exactly as they hear them.

But I have never seen a foreign learner make this mistake, because they have to learn the way these verb forms are constructed to be able to use them. It's the same with the confusion in the spelling of 'your' and 'you're' and 'their', 'they're' and 'there' - these kinds of mistakes are almost exclusively made by native speakers. I'd suggest that most foreign learners who are following coursed of Upper-intermediate level and above, know rather more about the theory of English grammar than native speakers. And for many native speakers of English, their own understanding of grammar structures comes when learning a foreign language.

I hope that last 'spot the error' bit was just your little joke, as of course the 've in I've (/v/) is pronounced completely differently from the 've in would've, could've etc (/əv/), the latter being pronounced exactly the same way as unstressed 'of', hence the confusion.

As I remember, the Colemanballs column, in Private Eye magazine, wasn't reserved specifically for Coleman's own slip-ups, but for any funny gaffes made by sports commentators, and rather, was named in his honour. The column's scope has now been widened, and its name changed accordingly, to 'Mediaballs'. But elsewhere, the word Colemanballs is certainly used for his particular gaffes.

@Brus - 'Why do people who do not care about the language, and think terms like "between you and I" are just fine ... why on earth do they engage with this Pain the English forum'.

Personally, I say 'between you and me', and would always advise my students to do the same. But 'between you and I' is really a very small error and leaves no room for misunderstanding or ambiguity. Personal pronouns are the last area where English retains cases, and many of the most argued about questions revolve round them. If we can accept objective pronouns in situations where formal grammar demands subjective ones, is it really so awful to do it the other way round? It sounds no worse or pompous to me than people who use grammatically 'correct' but hopelessly formal language in informal situations. I certainly don't think it justifies making disparaging remarks about the people who say it or about their English.

And I'm afraid your analogy, oft-used on traditional grammar sites, of taking away the second person doesn't always work. Canadaneil has said that he can 'tolerate' subjective 'me' in ”me and Geoff went to the beach", and a lot of us use this construction informally, but of course we'd never say "me went to the beach". Linguists well understand that different things can happen when joint subjects or objects are involved than when only one person is involved.

I am also slightly horrified by reading some of the stuff above - you may love the bit about 'faux-pomposity' and the stuff about 'people over-rating their own eloquence'. But I just see someone imputing things to other people he has no way of knowing about, in a rather intellectually-snobbish way. This only confirms my feeling that a lot of language peeving is as much about putting other people down as with any real interest in grammar..

As I was the one who used the word smug; yes, I'm afraid that is the impression I do get from many language peevers, as exemplified by the article I quoted above, and especially from websites like 'Apostrophe Abuse' - a sense of 'We know better than them'. And often without cause, as all they are interested in is their 'rule', not the history behind it, or any debate surrounding it.

There's a lot more to caring about, or even loving, the language than criticising other people for their errors; and it's perhaps telling that people who devote their lives to the study of English hardly ever do this.

What I find really horrifying is that you seem to think that those of us whose interest in English is one of observing a fascinating organically-developing system rather than peeving about the English of others have no reason to engage with PITE. Should PITE be reserved, then, for those who, in your own words, get grumpy about what you perceive as deteriorating standards? Does it mean that there is no place here for someone whose interest in English is more informed by modern linguistics than by traditional prescriptivism? People who try to take care with their own language, people like me who teach English, write about English, but who haven't the slightest interest in, or desire to, complain about the language of others. There are few enough of us as it is, but it seems you would have PITE reserved for the faithful.

@Brus - Yes, Jeremy Hunt is often the butt of this kind of joke. Was your vicar a country vicar, by any chance? Rhetorical question.

@Canadaneil - in the context of the history of English, I'd suggest that the 19th century is in fact relatively recent.

@Brus - but was the pronunciation of aunt an essential part of the story (in which case I think I've missed something), or did you add that on yourself? Talking of your story, one thing I have noticed is how often allusions are made nowadays on Radio Four to the other possible answer to the Vicar's question, in relatively sedate programmes such as 'Just a minute'. How the barriers have fallen!