I'm not ambitious; I just want to tell people how to speak and force them to make sense. I don't always agree with Webster's, and I would like them to get a clue.
For example: our local weatherman uses the word "seasonable" to describe the temperature on a given day. I looked it up, and my big ol' honkin' dictionary agrees with him that "seasonable" means usual for a particular season. What's wrong with "seasonal"? As one long interested in etymology, I find it makes a lot more sense. The "al" ending makes it "like the season", which is a lot better than adding "able" which makes it "capable of being seasoned." (Think "reasonable")
Another rule I don't like is the "I am well" answer one is supposed to give when asked how she is. It seems to me that it is just as likely that I describe myself with a predicate adjective "I am good" as it is that I describe the verb "am" with an adverb. "I am well" sounds poncey, "I am good" sounds descriptive, at least to me.
I know. There's no sense arguing. Somebody decided these things were "correct", at least for this century. (Remember, double, triple, and quadruple negatives were permissable in Shakespeare's time, the thought being that piling them up added emphasis. Now we claim they cancel each other out, like numbers in a math equation.)
Language does not make sense, and English is as bad as, maybe worse than, any other. A mishmash of Latin, Celtic, and a dozen long-lost languages, it has been added to from other languages, twisted by centuries of use, and transformed by idioms and idiots. The rules, therefore, are arbitrary and often silly.
I can be arbitrary, and I'm often silly. So let me rule the grammar world, and I'll tell you all how to speak correctly--my way.