Original sentence: (For example, certain Shakespearean constructions, such as the use of "his" for "its," or "an" for "if," are not considered correct today.)  Yet another common argument follows what might be called a democratic principle: it asserts that, since language changes naturally over time, a usage should be considered correct if it is common.Another kind of argument is one based on an appeal to precedent, asserting that a particular usage should be accepted or preferred because the best writers have used it in the past, or conversely, that it should be rejected because it is a neologism.One common kind of argument will justify on the basis of logic or functionality that a particular usage is better.Such disagreements are often quite impassioned, using a variety of different arguments.This kind of argument can become very complicated, as not everyone always agrees on whether a usage is a new one: for example, if a usage was common until the 1800s, but was hardly ever seen in the 1900s, then some might consider it new if it regained currency, while others might not
Edited sentence: At other times, people appeal to precedent:  a particular usage should be used because the best writers have used it in the past.In some cases, people will even appeal to writers who wrote several centuries ago, such as William Shakespeare.Sometimes, one side attempts to argue on the basis of logic or functionality that a particular usage is better.Such appeals to old usage are dubious, since many grammatical constructions used by Shakespeare could not possibly be used in educated writing today, as in the use of "his" for "its", or "an" for "if".Such disagreements often are surprisingly impassioned.We do not hold such usages against Shakespeare, since they were normal in his day and the language has changed since then