"And mike, lingual evolution is one thing, but the "over house"/"over to house" thing isn't exactly a good direction for evolution. Language should aid communication, not screw it up."
You can go to pretty much any time period in history and make the exact same argument about changes that were then taking place, changes that we now consider to be correct, proper English. There are some who consider any evolutionary change in a language (I think most of them post here, actually, and a few other places I frequent) as a Godless conspiracy involving Satan, George Soros, Barak Obama (or whatever convenient Democrat is at hand) and Santa Claus.
"It happens that in my career field (software development) a solid grounding in one's native grammar is one of the most valuable assets to be had for aspirants to the field."
I've always found that a background in musicology is even better.
Some years ago (starting in the 1940s, I believe) a professor (and I'll be damned if I can remember his name) attempted to compile a complete set of rules for the English language - grammar, structure, word usage, etc.
When he died over 40 years later he wasn't finished and he had over 7,000 pages.
In many ways, English, because of its polyglot nature, is the most fluid and adaptable of all of the world's languages.
As for "guys," that's a whole different subject. It is, some would say (or scream, actually), an example of the sexually repressive language used by a male dominated society to repress and belittle the uteroamerican population.
OK, enough of that *expletive deleted*it.
Using a masculine term such as guys when referring to a mixed gender group, or even a group of the opposite gender, has been an accepted nuance of the English language for at least 500 years. It's only within the last 50 years, with the rise of the feminist movement, that you get into the silliness upon which I expounded in my previous paragraph.
