The English Language Doesn't Have OFFICIAL Rules

Thank you for your respect and cordiality. I would like to make something clear right now that I failed to do so earlier, which is to say that I am in no way saying that we shouldn't respect the rules of grammar (in general at least); rather, I try to educate others on the proper use of such grammar if I find they have made a mistake of a grammatically serious nature, although I also try not to be patronizing, especially as, like I said before, I am convinced that there are no "official rules". Let me explain by addressing your examples. I am not too familiar with music theory, so I can't speak to that, but I would agree that math has official rules. Math is generally accepted as a system that works with itself, and even though some aspects of it might not fit perfectly into the real world, the CONCEPT (please forgive my all caps; I'm doing this from my phone and can't italicize) of math is that of the system, and that it works by itself. I'm not going to start the "did we invent math or discover it" but the point is that math has to make sense with itself, by definition. However, what about sciences? In science there generally are no RULES. There are widely accepted theories, but they can be disproved and remade (I suppose mentioning the fact that Euclid wasn't completely right about geometry with his maxims relates math to science in this case, though). There are laws of nature that govern the world, but those laws are not science itself. Science is the study and growth of understanding of those laws. That is how I would describe the "English language", because it was not artificially created. We must ask ourselves about what is the CONCEPT of the English language. This is important for both understanding my points and being able to properly debate, as keeping different opinions on what the concept of the English language is leads to not actually debating about the same topic. For rules to be "official", they must be directly related to the concept. The concept of math is of a system that works with itself (in general, although you could make arguments based on the Euclid situation that I mentioned before). A board game might have a set of "official" rules, because the board games concept, the definition in our minds of the board game, is directly linked to those rules. The rules help define what the board game is, much like math's rules. You talked about how a government's laws can change, and how there are official laws. I agree, however, do you consider the government definable by its laws at any given moment? If we broke down the American constitution and laws, present at this time, wouldn't that be the definition of the government we have today? It depends on your concept of what the government is, and it's the same for the English language. What's your definition of the English language? You said that Oxford didn't change the language irresponsibly, and I agree, but do they, theoretically, have the right? Because this is somewhat of a theoretical argument. IF Oxford did, let's say, declare that the English language follow the grammar and rules of French, would it be true? Would that be the English language? I think not, but if Oxford's or other dictionaries' rules aren't official enough to be heeded in that situation... Are they "official" rules? If the answer is, to you, that the language WOULD count as changed, then we might have a problem, as our concepts of the English language are drastically opposed. However, if, as I suspect, you would say that of course it WOULDN'T, then I would ask you this: Is Oxford right because it's right in and of itself? Or is it right because it fits the definitions and grammar you already accept? If Oxford was right in and of itself, or along with other dictionaries (assuming they don't disagree, which poses an entirely new theoretical problem), then the CONCEPT of the English language would have to be directly affiliated with Oxford and the other dictionaries. They define what the English language is. So, if that were so, then what were the English speaking before Oxford took responsibility for the language? And, should they, entirely theoretically, change the language and we didn't change ours... What would we be speaking? I propose that the English language, as before, evolves in and of itself, as people find new ways of expressing themselves through it. However, the grammatical rules that we follow are attempts to stabilize the evolution by observing the language and defining it, like you would in a science. If, let's say, the language was artificially created by one person, then it probably would have official rules, as the concept would be of the language that the person created, which would be based on his definitions. However, the English language was never created, so it doesn't really have a definition such as this (any definition would probably be outdated, and compare more closely with the languages it stemmed from, and no one nowadays would probably speak it. But I don't use that concept, and, clearly, neither do you). While I don't agree with all scientific theories, I still support teaching the majority or all of the commonly accepted ones (of not as fact, as theories). I still agree that gravity exists, even though it is just a theory. And so, I think we SHOULD continue teaching what you would consider to be "proper English", as it is a very good definition and helps keep the language in shape. But I think we should come up with new and better theories. Didn't Shakespeare invent many words? Don't dialects exist? Don't we understand each other when using "words" like "ain't"? While I explain grammar when I feel I should (although I probably make many mistakes, as I'm no English major; I'm not out of high school), I keep in mind that they aren't hard, fast rules. They are theoretical, and CAN be changed. If we keep this in mind, I think that it would be a lot easier to have more people who, like William Shakespeare, made a difference in their language in order to improve it, expand on it, and add to its art and depth. I also believe that we have very similar concepts of the language, and I hope we do, because concepts must be the same in any given debate, so that we debate on the same topic. I eagerly await your rebuttal, if you remain unconvinced. Have a lovely day!