Something I faintly envy Spanish. Of course, the flip side of that is, they can do that because their verbs still broadly inflect according to subject, and ours largely don't anymore. We still have to use the extra word, but we're spared having to make the verbs agree much beyond third person singular, present tense ("to be" notwithstanding). But yeah, the range in Romance languages is vast. French and Spanish have gotten rid of most of the old inflection, Italian has preserved a fair amount, but I gather Romanian has been very conservative in this respect, which probably makes some sense given how inflection-intensive the neighbouring Slavic languages tend to be.
I think it's commonly held because it's a distinction without a difference. One of the definitions promulgated by the NED (a.k.a. OED) is "To generate, develop, or modify by natural processes or gradual alteration", which is a very good description of the process of language development. Certainly it's what I mean when I say "it's just how the language evolved culturally": that is to say, a natural, gradual process of modification and development.
The change I meant was change as a concious alteration. There is nothing concious about evolution. It is natural and out of our control. Language doesn't evolve on its own, we change it, is what I meant. We usually change it to make it easier or by accident (misunderstanding of a word's meaning, spelling, origins, etc). I usually have this debate with people who rite like dis as txt spk is the nu spk and defend themselves by saying that language evolves and there's nothing we can do. Yes, there is: You can write like this. Lol. (See what I did there with the Lol?)
I don't see the question of intentionality as being germane to the idea of something changing over time. Guided or unguided, it makes no difference. In biological terms, evolution happens without any regard to whether the agency is conscious (artificial selection) or unconscious (natural selection). For that matter, much of language change is unguided: while things like new coinages or turns of phrase may be consciously conjured, things like the Great Vowel Shift or the erosion of inflexion in Middle English were not conscious, controlled decisions on the part of any one person, group, or committee.
For me, the bottom line is that people understand what is meant by saying that language evolves; it presents no hurdles to comprehension. There's nothing about the term "evolve" that either limits it to a biological context, or disqualifies conscious choice from being part of the process.
By the same logic, you could be writing to us using the runes and the Anglo-Saxon vocabulary and insisting that therefore language doesn't evolve. I don't think that holds water.
At the antique market held each Sunday at the St. Lawrence Market (north side of Front St.) there is one vendor who sells B&W prints of old Toronto. He does a brisk business. Some of the pictures are interesting, seeing what no longer exists or seeing a sapling in a shot that's a massive tree now.
