There are two errors of grammar in that sentence."Hawley has since moved out of the Multi milliom dollar Greenwich pile,that was home to himself and Antonia's children." "is" was incorrect since Hawley and Antonia's children had already left,and also the use of the incorrect pronoun "he" instead of "himself".

Time for everyone to start watching the re-run of the Story of English on SBS perhaps?
Language changes. Word meanings change. What is correct for one generation will not be correct for another.
What is important is that we understand one another.
I'll remind you of one of my favourite quotations. It comes from the person who got International Literacy Year off the ground, "The most important thing a human being learns to do is communicate." (Cath Gunn)

Arjay,

I was unaware of the factual circumstances. I assumed that the intent was "Hawley has since moved out of the multi-million dollar Greenwich pile that is home to *his* and Antonia's children..."

As regards the original topic, I remain bemused as to how these changes spread. The "between you and I" phenomenon seems to have arisen in the last thirty years or so. Before that I don't remember hearing it. This seems to imply that there was a period during which only a small minority of people were making the mistake, and that they persisted with it despite being surrounded by the majority who were getting it right. It also implies that either people who were getting it right started copying those who were getting it wrong, or at least that younger people selectively copied the erroneous usage rather than the more widespread correct usage. I find that hard to fathom, even in the light of the phenomenon of hypercorrectness.

Communicat,

Yes, certainly languages change, but that doesn't mean we have to like it, or even tolerate it. There is no good reason not to seek to prevent it as far as possible.

Even though it's true that we won't find ourselves lumbered with a language that doesn't function, the constant change gradually makes works written or recorded earlier inaccessible to all but specialists. It will equally make our current work inaccessible to our descendants. Shakespeare is already quite difficult for an English speaker (though maybe it always was). Old English is a foreign language for practical purposes.

Another reason for objecting to changes is that during the transition, we have a situation where there is no clear cut agreed grammatical rule. This can obviously lead to considerable friction when a subordinate writes something one way, and a superior insists on its being changed in a way that the subordinate considers wrong.

So overall, I don't have to like it, and I don't.

Bugsy, "We already have custodians of the rules of language in educational and publishing institutions" is my point exactly. Today's teachers and lecturers are mostly the product of leftist university professors whose purpose is to bring down the west. An assault on good language usage is one of many attacks.

So is the choice to be pedants or mumbling, unintelligible speakers of multitudinous dialects? Some standard should be kept. Let language progress but not diverge along many paths.

Wow Jack, nice rant. I totally love this gem: " Today's teachers and lecturers are mostly the product of leftist university professors whose purpose is to bring down the west. An assault on good language usage is one of many attacks."

Man, that's classic. I can see our language is in good hands.
LOLDONGS

Hi, Bugsy, totally loved your reply to my 'rant'. Unfortunately I totally didn't understand your 'LOLDONGS' sign-off. Could it be 'LOL with knobs on'? Or am I totally like wrong, um, ya know?

BTW, I stand by my 'rant'. Totally.