“Especially the particular usages, “I be a dumshjt” and “we be dumshjts”. You seem to want to succumb to the same, frankly disastrous, point of view that consigned even Medieval Latin to the ash-heap of history.”
I’m of two minds about this:
1. There’s the demonstrable history that English changes a lot over time. Our English would probably be considered a barbaric regularization of verbs by educated English speakers from 300 years ago. Yet we consider ourselves defenders of the language from the barbarians. It’s going to change and there’s nothing we can do. With texting, twitter and the internet interacting with pop-culture, it will change much faster than it ever has before.
2. OTOH, writing and speaking well—and defending those who do—is really the only response we have.
But pretending the language is not going to change and that the change will not be in the direction of “commoness”—at least in our lifetimes—is not living in reality even though I think folks who use the regular form of “to be” sound like idiots. In 100 years, they won’t; and will probably rail at the debasement of their language by new, common usages.
I love reading 18th and 19th century correspondence. It was so much more eloquent, precise, and expressive than texting. OTOH, Beowulf-era English and even Edwardian English is hard to read or understand. But, in reality, I text my wife and son regularly and we all use abbreviations. And that’s how Beowulf-era English changed into American 2011 English.
Frankly, I don’t care that I don’t speak Medieval Latin. So I guess I’m a craven succumber. :)
If that constitutes 'progress' to you, so be it. Hate to quote Cicero again, but, as he famously remarked to Catalina, "Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?"