AT The Herald, we have our standards, don't you know. I can imagine the headlines if we hadn't: "Fury as "we couldn't care less" attitude is slammed."

That opening paragraph contains six breaches of our style guide for in-house journalists. How many jarred with you?

Let me quote the relevant passages from The Herald's handbook:

"Informal words: Mums, dads, kids, teens, unis, and ops are now acceptable in headlines. But brutal, blasts, slammed, inferno, caged and fury are still best avoided.

"Shortened words: Avoid using don’t, can’t, won’t, didn’t etc in copy, unless it is in reported speech.

"Quotation marks: Avoid using single quotes, unless it is a quote within a quote or a quote in the headline and caption."

So there we have it. Don't, hadn't, fury, slam, couldn't and double quotation marks in the headline. Oops.

How strict, though, should we be in applying such rules? Shouldn't we move on, even to a limited extent? (There, I did it again.)

Many years ago, back when I was starting out in this trade and reporters were still writing on slates, there were stylebook strictures that seem hopelessly antiquated to our eyes today. I was told that only Malays can run amok, since the word was of Malayan origin. Fish are gutted, buildings are not. Do not say "died suddenly" – the exact moment of death is always instantaneous.

And then there were the Scottish imperatives: strath instead of valley, Main Street rather than High Street, Town House, not Town Hall.

Many will argue that the rules I have quoted should be regarded as obsolete in the 21st century (to be fair, some of them pertain to the 19th). In many cases, I wouldn't disagree. (Again. Damn.)

The language is constantly evolving, and we need to adapt with it; otherwise we risk being hoist with the petard of pedantry.

A case in point: a colleague was this week agonising over the use of the word "decimated". Historically, to decimate means (according to the Oxford Dictionary) "to kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group". When a football club's roster of fit players is decimated, we do not necessarily mean it is reduced by one-tenth, but should we confine the word's usage to such circumstances? Does it now just mean drastically reduced?

There are of course words whose meanings have changed through time – myriad was originally reserved for 10,000, but now signifies a great many, and few people mean "God be with you" when they say goodbye. But how many shifting definitions should we accept? How many things are unique? Literally? How about legendary? Or iconic?

Evolution is one thing, but perhaps there's a case for revolution. Should we get back to insisting on proper usage ?

Wicked, as the young would say. Or have I got that wrong?