The Society maintains that the most visible, systemic failure of the English language occurs at the supermarket checkout.

"10 Items or Less."

The Society issues the following ruling:

• Groceries in a basket are countable nouns. The word is FEWER.
• Supermarkets failing to observe this distinction are committing a grammatical assault against a captive audience.
• Any Fellow who encounters a "10 Items or Less" sign is officially permitted to bring exactly 10 gallons of unbottled liquid milk to the counter, as liquid is uncountable and therefore legally qualifies for "less."

The Society refuses to purchase provisions from merchants who treat basic grammar as a discountable commodity.

The Society holds that the exclamation mark is an emotional crutch used by those incapable of constructing a sentence with inherent structural urgency. A well-crafted sentence does not need to shout.

The exclamation mark is therefore formally restricted to the following scenarios:

• To indicate the outbreak of a major international land war.
• To alert a bystander to an incoming projectile or falling piano.
• To denote a sudden, unexpected amputation.
• Upon the sighting of a misplaced apostrophe on municipal signage.

Fellows are reminded that they are allotted three (3) exclamation marks per lifetime. Use them wisely.

(Exceptions will not be made for birthdays, engagements, or the receipt of a "funny" digital photograph.)

It has come to the Society's attention that several major dictionaries — including bodies we once considered allies — have amended their definition of the word "LITERALLY" to include its exact opposite: figuratively.

The Society issues the following clarification:

• The dictionary has been compromised. We do not know who got to the editors, but they are no longer operating under their own volition.
• Language evolves, but it does not surrender. The acceptance of a widespread error does not make it a rule; it makes it an epidemic.
• Enforcement remains absolute. If you inform a Fellow of this Society that you "literally died laughing," we will require you to present a valid death certificate. If you cannot produce one, you will be asked to leave the premises.

The Society remains the final line of defence. We will not yield to the mob.

The Society frequently encounters individuals expressing their supposed lack of interest during an argument by stating: "I could care less."

The Society wishes to present a brief lesson in deductive logic:

• If you could care less, it mathematically dictates that you currently possess a non-zero level of care.
• You are therefore actively admitting to being emotionally invested in the very topic you are attempting to dismiss.
• The correct phrase is "I couldn't care less." It signifies absolute zero on the Kelvin scale of human interest.

Any Fellow hearing the incorrect phrase is instructed to respond: "I am so glad to hear you care. Let us discuss the matter further."

The Society views the menus of high-street cafes not as lists of sustenance, but as crime scenes. The most egregious ongoing offence is the pluralization of the Italian loan-word panini.

The ruling is as follows:

• In Italian, panino is singular (one sandwich).
• Panini is already plural (multiple sandwiches).
• Therefore, to order "two paninis" is to request two pluralities of sandwiches, whilst simultaneously demonstrating a catastrophic failure to grasp basic Romance language suffixes.

The same rule applies to biscotti and paparazzi. (You cannot be chased by a single paparazzi. You are chased by a paparazzo.)

If a cafe menu advertises "Paninis," the Society recommends eating elsewhere. If they cannot be trusted with a plural, they cannot be trusted with mayonnaise.

The Society notes with rising alarm the public's habit of borrowing a word from another language and then translating it back onto itself, as though the loan were not trusted to survive the journey alone.

For the record:

• "Chai tea" is "tea tea."
• "Naan bread" is "bread bread."
• "The Sahara Desert" is "the Desert Desert."
• "Salsa sauce" is "sauce sauce."
• The "La Brea Tar Pits" are "the The Tar Tar Pits" — a construction so recursive that several Fellows, upon parsing it, have had to lie down.

The Society holds that a loan-word, once admitted to English, is entitled to its full meaning, and shall not be made to work alongside its own translation like a suspect under escort.

(Any Fellow ordering a "chai tea latte" is, knowingly or otherwise, requesting "tea tea milk," and may be served accordingly.)

The Society is obliged, once again, to report a kidnapping. The phrase "begs the question" has been abducted from the study of logic, where it performed honest work, and is being held by the general public under an assumed identity.

The facts are these:

• To beg the question is to commit the fallacy of petitio principii: assuming, within one's premise, the very conclusion one claims to prove. "The dictionary is authoritative because it is the dictionary" begs the question.
• It does not mean "raises the question." English already possesses a phrase for raising the question. It is "raises the question."

The Society has been asked why it persists in a distinction the public has so plainly abandoned. The Society replies that it persists because it is the Society — an answer it recognises, with some discomfort, as begging the question.

The Society observes that industry and government alike describe their improvements as "quantum leaps," in the belief that this denotes magnitude.

A quantum is the smallest discrete change the universe permits. A quantum leap is, therefore, the least dramatic advance physically possible while still being an advance at all.

The Society has resolved not to correct this usage. It is the rare error that improves the accuracy of corporate communication, and the Society will not stand in the way of honesty, however accidental.

(Fellows are instructed to congratulate any organisation announcing a quantum leap in service, and to expect precisely that.)

The word is "now."

(This position holds the Society's record for brevity of deliberation. The minutes record no discussion.)