What is the "correct" English

Charit is not a cromulent word.

The correct English is what is in use. No one says charit. Charit wouldn't even occur to me as a possibility. People say ghost and rizz. They are in use. A language is not a set of words and rules set by god that never change, it's made by the people who use it. Rizz and ghost might not be socially appropriate in all settings, but they are part of the language. (The verb for charity is something like "giving/participating in/doing charity.")

There's no such thing as any correct language. What would that even mean? Language is not something which can be correct or incorrect like, say, math or history. There is no logical necessity to the relationships between sounds, symbols, and meaning, and there is no truth about what occurred or did not occur (in this specific sense -- obviously language *has* history.) Really, language is convention. To be "correct" is to match up with the expected conventions of your context. Rizz is certainly correct English speaking with people of the right age and social context to understand and appreciate it. In those same contexts "orthogonal" might be completely inappropriate and incoherent. Some contexts, like academic journals, legal writing, and newspapers, have very clear and explicit conventions. But most of the time you just sort of figure it out, and people pretend there are concrete rules. Some languages, like European French and Spanish, even have official state bodies who say they can determine what "correct" language is. But often they are ignored, because language is complicated and historically contingent, not something that can be handed out or refused.

The fact that there was no answer is such a weird question. I'd have said "to be charitable" but that's a stretch The answer is there is no correct english. Even spelling, the infamous 'colour vs color' both or only one is correct depending where you are. Obsolete english is still english, slang words are not appropriate for non non-formal texts (so anyone who isn't a friend). Business english also exists, though admittedly with the younger generation that is slooooowly fading away, and though shortenings like "don't, can't, won't, haven't" are completely correct including grammatically, (not sure about worldwide) but in the UK those are not allowed in things like essays or formal writing. It's an absolute minefield of knowing when and when not to. Tldr; there is no correct english it's all context and location dependent. Good luck lmao

One reasonable definition, is if the language you're using is understandable by your audience and it has grammar consistent with some dialect of English, often standard British or American English. Using old English could be "correct" if you were talking to someone in 800AD, or you're writing a paper on Old English, but it's not correct in a job interview or trying to order a beer in a pub today. Gen Z words can be correct if you're a Gem Z person hanging out with their friends, and incorrect in a job interview.

I think it’s the wrong question. It’s just not like that anymore. 50 or 100 years ago dictionaries (or grammar books) were thought to be prescriptive and provide the rules for the English language. Obviously there were many dictionaries, but OED or Merriam-Webster were a couple of the main ones and as a whole were pretty conservative and pulled out as the arbiter of correct English. That all has changed since then. I think the internet (and Google) has a lot to do with it, but dictionaries are thought of as more descriptive now. “Correct” English has become common usage. Not entirely, of course, but you see phrasing like “non-standard” or “uncommon” to describe words a lot more to sidestep qualitative judgement. And I think that’s a good thing. Language needs to evolve to do its job. In fact, I think if you wanted to start using ”charity” as a verb (or start using “to charit”), you could probably get away with it in the right context. That sort of thing happens a lot now.

>it was considered wrong, because it is archaic and obsolete I don't think 'charit' has ever been a word in English. It's not archaic. It's just not English.

Just because a word is old English that doesn’t mean it can’t be used. Tolkien was a fan of words with Germanic origin so in The Lord Of The Rings I read plenty of old words which I had never heard spoken. Had anyone told Tolkien not to use old English he would have blown a thick cloud of Tobacco smoke in their faces and hurriedly have shooed them away. ‘To Charit’ fits perfectly and the meaning is explained by the context. It isn’t everyday English but it most certainly isn’t wrong if you ask me.

There isn't "correct English." There is *formal* English, business English, broadcast English, academic English, literary English. And there are people who will call those things "correct English." But they aren't any more legitimate than any other form of English. What they do, however, is mark you as a member of a class. The way that you speak says things about where you are from, what social groups you belong to, your life experiences, and generally who you are. Those things may or may not be accurate, but nonetheless, those are the messages you are sending out. Because of that, it is useful to be able to speak "formal English," since most of us will find it useful to present ourselves as educated members of the middle to upper middle class, again, regardless of whether we actually are that. So the question isn't whether "rizz," "yeet," "grok," "bogart," "copacetic," or "the morbs" are "real words," to take examples from now, the 1960s, 1920s, and 1880s. The question is "what will the person you are talking to assume about you if you use those words?"

As a native English speaker if someone said “I’ve charited to the local hospital every year since they saved my mother’s life”, I would think it *odd* but completely understandable. That’s the thing about language. The verb might be archaic but it has the same root and can be used in uncommon ways with most people understanding it. (In the same way a child can say “I swimmed at the pool”, and be understood)

To give charity

I would say "correct" English in this case is anything 90% of English speakers alive today can understand. So rizz might not be in there, but ginormous is. And to charit is not. Informal vs formal is a separate question, but when I think "correct", I think more formal (especially grammatically), not just understandable.

I won't try and answer your question, but I personally don't have any gen Z slang in my vocabulary. As for "charity", a case could probably be made for the verb "cherish". It's not a perfect match but etymologically they're linked and their meanings are similar if we take "charity" in the Christian sense of the word.

The test was probably written before "rizz" was even a thing. And even if it is a new test, the test's writer would probably never use "rizz", and might not even understand what it means. The "correct" English depends on who you're talking to and in what situation.

You’re basically asking linguistic questions that can apply to any widely spoken language and these questions don’t always have simple agreed upon answers. But I’ll take a stab: The so called prestige dialect or “standard” form of any language is that which is spoken by the group who holds power. Word usages such as “Rizz” and “ghost” may end up in the dictionary one day, many words that are considered standard today were once young people’s slang.

To a linguistic descriptivist, there's no one “correct” version of any language. We just describe how groups of people talk and how it’s interpreted. Something might be “incorrect” because it sounds strange, or because it doesn’t mean what you think. Pragmatically, most learners choose to learn one dialect and use it consistently. The most popular ones for learners are Standard Southern British and General American.

In American English, I'd say *donate* comes closest: “He donated his old car,” implies it was given to a charity.

Would've never thought of charit. Never seen it, never heard it. I would've probably said care.

Donate

I would say what is correct in a broad sense is what is understandable and in usage. If you said "to charit/ I charited (???)" To me I'd have zero idea what you were talking about. However there actually IS "correct" English in an academic sense --- it's standardized academic English (originally based off of upper class londoner dialect when/where the printing press was popularized) and in that words such as "rizz" aren't currently acceptable. As an English learner though just focus on learning what is currently in usage. It doesn't matter if a word used to exist if no English speakers understand.

i mean, if you just wanted the verb that was cognate with the noun it would be “to cherish,” which would have the benefit of being a real word in modern english

There is no universally agreed upon form of correct English, but there are things that are universally agreed to not be correct English, and "to charit" is one of them. Which form of English people use depends on many things such as region, age, or the specific social situation.

"Charit" is not a word at all, archaic or not. Words like "rizz" are part of a vernacular (informal) register of English. They are not "incorrect". But this is separate from how new or "modern" the word is. English, like most languages, has different ways of speaking appropriate to different social situations.

Charit was never a word in English.

Language is a negotiated set of sounds and meanings. If a certain word falls out of custom, then the best we can say is “people used to say this, but if you say it now, most people won’t know what you mean.” The same goes for words like “to google” or “rizz.” New words can be temporary, rising for a generation and disappearing. Slang like “cool” has stuck around for 100 years, but “on fleek” and “da bomb” came and went.

What’s correct English depends on the context. If you are speaking casually in a particular community, you can use the slang of that community. If you are in a professional setting, you generally want to avoid slang. However, using words like “charit” isn’t really appropriate in any context. I’m a native speaker with a fairly wide vocabulary and have never heard the word. It is definitely archaic, to the point that most would not recognize it as Modern English, and therefore will always be considered incorrect in a modern context.

I think you were unlucky to be given such a question in a test. I suppose if your instructors had deliberately pointed out that 'charity' has no verb form, then I can understand it being used in the test, but still... I'm not a linguist but as I understand it, there's a debate in linguistics over whether grammatical rules (and perhaps the study and teaching of language in general) are descriptive - the rules describe how language is used - or prescriptive - the rules define and limit the function of language. Prescriptivists, like your instructors seem to be, only accept fixed definitions for things. Like you, I'm a descriptivist. Language is given life and meaning by its users.

Charitable?