The differences between prescriptivism and descriptivism is the reason of the ongoing war sparked between the supporters of each. Many people see the two as one is right and the other is wrong; one improves language while the other does not. They do not see that both of them can work with each other to some degree as they had been ever since the rules ‘correct’ spelling and pronunciation of English words had develop. As history has shown, the coexistence of prescriptivism and descriptivism had occurred ever since the development of the English language from its proto-language. Throughout the English eras (Old English, Middle English, Early New English and Modern English), each subsystem had undergone changes while still maintaining certain English rules from each period. For example, descriptivism had clearly taken place throughout the years as there had been an increase in lexicology from the publishing of the first Oxford English Dictionary to the current copy. Lexemes such as ‘pulchritudihous’, an adjective for physically beautiful would not had been in the first printed copy. As well as in the addition and obsolescence to lexemes (rabbit and coney), morpheme (-ing and -ed) and variations in spelling (vyolence and violence) , there had been changes in phonology due to events such as ‘The Great Vowel Shift’, occurring in the late Middle English period. However, even with this, people couldn’t help but argue about them. So the main debate between them is whether or not grammar is something that can be naturally learnt or something that had to be taught? It would be easier to acknowledge that both can benefit from each together but the problem is that different people’s opinions are getting in the way in keeping the two separate. One believes that it would make the language easier if it is flexible whereas the other insists that language should behave in an orderly fashion. To be honest, it is better to support both. By stepping into the shoes of the two enable English speakers to see the best of both sides. As quoted from Priestly, reforming a language would be like “trying to rope in a river”. Language cannot be fully uniformed, as there would be lexemes that come and go and changes in semantics of lexemes caused by new inventions and discoveries. However tools such as dictionary and education are dependent on prescriptivism, tools that native speakers need to communicate. Hence, as mentioned before, prescriptivism and descriptivism is both required in English. Everyone must be taught, in school, the standard rules of the language (spelling, grammar and punctuation) as it is required for clear communication with speakers of the language around the world. However it is important to accept any new natural changes to the language as it enable the evolution of the language.