There was a fracas some months ago - I think on the "Today" programme - about the new linguistic oddity of the double "is": as in "the thing is, is that", or "the problem is, is that" - and so forth.
They trotted out the customary "linguistic" "expert", who suggested that the second "is" is merely a lexical filler to enable the speaker to gather his ("or -yawn - her", to quote Giles Coren ) thoughts. This is demonstrably nonsense.
When speakers use the double "is", there's never a trace of hesitation. All that has happened is (is) that among careless speakers - who are the majority, and, therefore, in charge - such expressions have become cliches to such a degree that, for example, "the thing is" has become a composite word, necessitating another "is" for the sake of syntax.
The fact that I find this horrifying is not of the least importance: if it is the way that the language is going - why, then! - it is the way that the language is going. I wish it a happy and productive journey.
But I find myself uncomfortably suspended between two stools. A language that does not evolve is a dead language. (Maybe that's why I love Latin.) But it is possible for English to "make sense" without disrupting entirely the customs of usage and idiom. If the double "is" has become idiomatic, it saddens me: it doesn't make sense.