Both Zorn’s and Smith’s argument did complicate my original thoughts about the right of language. Smith’s argument stand out to me because of the title. The title clearly explains what he is going to argue about, which is to argue that no one is titled to their own language. Language is a communication media that connects people that speaks the same language. Without language, we would be like caveman. I agree that there are so many different modifications of English, as Smith argues, and all that came from a few people long time ago that invented English, and they are titled to their language, not us the speakers and learners. I might interpret his arguments in a wrong way, but that is what I understand.
