Not sure if capitayn catte and DoomSouth are bantering for fun. But if not, then this is one of the most pointless arguments I've ever seen on these forums.
In 2015,
a University of Montreal linguistics professor found 105 *gi* words where 68 (65%) of them were soft g pronunciations, but hard g pronunciations were used 2.5x more than soft g counterparts. When corrected for both existence and frequency, they have nearly the exact same results.
More info about this debate's timeline can be found on Time here on Archive.org. So both ways are correct and one is not more correct than the other since you both are sons or daughters of two different countries with their own set of regional dialects.
---
As for language semantics:
1. Language itself is dynamic and changes based on origin, rate of spread, geographical regions, culture, the frequency or exposure of certain syllables, and the physical strength of the speaker's mouth muscles, throat and mouth passages, and vocal cords.
2. For any native English speaker, shortening what we say to convey the same meaning is most often preferred route in business and everyday English.
Imagine if we were still speaking the old, correct form of English where we still pronounced like these examples here. I'd probably give up English for its tediousness and learn French in addition to my condensed mother tongue instead.
3. As long as both parties know what each other is talking about, then it doesn't which method is the more correct way of saying things unless you're trying to learn a specific English dialect. I subscribe to the philosophy that communication is just a means to an end of understanding one another. Sure, there is beauty in the technical use of language, but that stuff is better appreciated by artists, their audiences, and academics in a different setting.