As a fierce critic of Americanisms, nothing is so likely to make me purse my lips in distaste as a rogue "ize" or "izm" creeping into the English language.
As much as I love American culture, British English came first and the American dictionary is a product of a desire to simplify non-sensical grammar and irregular spellings. Or so I thought.
With the news that far from being a fad, the increasing Americanisation of British English is merely a return to the true origins of our language, I've been forced to re-examine my admitted prejudice.
Granted, I love British sterling and English literature, but I'm also an ardent European, so the suggestion that my resistance to Americanisms is a "vestige of colonial imperialism" makes me more than a little uneasy.
Far be it from me to question Shakespeare or Keats, both of whom were clearly linguistically more adept than I could ever hope to be, and I hope no one could ever criticise me for being resistant to progress, but I'm not a fan of change for the sake of change.
Britons have very little continuity on which to base our national identity beyond our currency, monarchy and language - our exit from Europe will seemingly secure the future of at least one of those - but in these transitional times, can we really bear to part with our language on top of everything else?
For some, they are the linguistic equivalent of nails down a blackboard, sure to leave them wincing at the abuse of the English language. But it may be time to give up the fight against Americanisms, Susie Dent the Countdown lexicographer has said, as she argues they are often closer to the true origin of words. Dent speculated that popular hatred of Americanisms, and belief that they represent dumbing down, was a “vestige of colonial imperialism”, and the result of a “long-held grudge towards a superpower”.