A MEMO came round the office the other day pointing out the distinction between "different from" and "different to".

One is preferable to the other and if only I could find the note, I could tell you which is which. Never mind, I'm sure it is "different from" that should be used, although this might well be another usage that is disappearing. Just as that "might" a few words back should probably be a "may".

A reader had written in to complain about a sighting in the Evening Press of "different to", which she felt was "different from" what she had been told at school. The reader in question was probably taught this grammatical rule some time ago, when strict mantras would have been recited to drum the message home.

Rules we learn when young stick in our heads, so certain generations have grown up with a concrete sense of what the language is and how it should be written. Yet while such rules have stayed constant in their minds, the language has sloshed about and changed, being a rich stew, with new ingredients added all the time.

We all have our pet hates. "Like" instead of "such as" is one to bring on a frown for me, as in "a city like York", which implies a comparison to another city similar to York; "such as" puts matters straight. "Over" instead of "more than" also irritates.

Yet how much does this matter? Both of these pet hates pop up all over the place, in books and newspapers, even the posh ones.

Another dislike of mine is "enormity" used to mean "enormousness", whereas the original definition refers to "extreme wickedness". This is a fittingly sombre word which, to my eyes and ears, is devalued by being used merely to convey physical size.

But life and language move on.

Here's another. "Decimate" originally means "to kill or remove one in every ten of", a definition that can be recalled wearily by those of us who should perhaps get out more. Besides, the modern usage of "destroy a large proportion of" is useful, especially in newspapers, where language is often put on an escalator to rise matters up a level.

It is perfectly possible I've committed a howler or two in this article already. And if I have, you can "kiss my chuddies", which is by way of an insult on the sub-continent.

According to a report at the weekend, Asian "yoof-speak" is spicing up English with slang words such as "gora" and "innit" entering the language, alongside "chuddies" (underwear) and "kiss my chuddies" (a serious insult).

"Gora" is slang for a white person, while "innit" means nothing much but is tacked on to the end of every sentence for expression.

Spoof television programmes such as The Kumars At No 42 and Goodness Gracious Me are to blame. Except that "blame" is hardly the word for such a splendid spicing up of the language.

Some of these Hindi words and expressions are apparently traced to the actress Meeraa Syal, who plays the grandmother in the Kumars and is said to have popularised "chuddies", among other coinages.

English is a mongrel language, with a bit of everything thrown in. It always has been, so that is why we should not be surprised by the newest recruits.

Some of these Hindi words are punchy and expressive, particularly "badmash" for a dishonest man. I also like the sound of "Angrez", which is used for an English person and sounds suspiciously close to angry.

Asian words are already floating around in our stew, with familiar English words such as bungalow, bangles, cheetahs, shampoo and thugs all having arrived here from the sub-continent.

A language has to adapt constantly and change in order to survive and stay vibrant; and as time moves on, certain once cast-iron rules rust and flake.

While all this can be unsettling, it is ultimately for the good, as otherwise we would all end up speaking a dead language.

And who wants to have a mouthful of dead words?

Updated: 10:31 Thursday, April 29, 2004