The English Language Doesn't Have OFFICIAL Rules

Thank you for your arguments. I will admit that that is not quite what I thought official meant (or, not how I used it). This is an example of why we should have commonly followed rules... However, I maintain that they are not official. By the definition of official, it is still not very different. Official rules must be approved by a public body, yes, but they must have authority to approve it. One of my main points is that no one has that authority (I hope that I made that clear previously). I am not aware of the time at which Oxford was founded, but it doesn't really matter, because I'm pretty certain that they didn't invent the English language with a bunch of other dictionaries. So, if English must be approved by a proper authority, then did it not exist until Oxford and other dictionaries started moderating it? English has been around for a long time, so how can Oxford have the authority to define its rules? Society accepts their authority, which is good, for the sake of maintaining communication, but if a stubborn person declared that they could ignore Oxford and speak what they considered to be the TRUE English language... Can we actually prove them wrong? Like I said before, Oxford is not making up rules, but rather fitting them to best fit what they observe from the English language. But how can those observations be official rules, if the language clearly is observable without their help. If Oxford suddenly gave up on the language, do you think it would still exist? Or, if they pulled rules out of thin air, wouldn't people lose trust in Oxford and give up on it? How is it that in this theoretical situation Oxford's rules are only considered official if people generally agree with them anyway? This does not sound to me like these rules are official, or, as I somewhat meant in my original post, unarguable. You compare "official" rules to laws a lot, and, though I find flaws with that analogy, i will do my best to address them and the analogy. Laws are unarguable, for the most part. When we think of American law, we think of the law made by the American government. The government, therefore, has the authority to define official rules. But, when you think of the English language, is Oxford the source of the language you imagine? You seem to agree that Oxford doesn't make the English language, but, if the English language has official rules, mustn't it have been created by those that make the rules? The government gives specific instructions for giving others the authority to change it. Besides that, i can't think of rules that were made by people that didn't have part in the creation of the system that the rules define, that were official. A dictator s seizing power would really be establishing a new administration, not redefining an old one. Change doesn't keep something from being official. Change without authority defining the change somewhat does. Using your driving example, if police suddenly started pulling over excessively elderly drivers, without a new law, is the execution of the law changed? Yes. But, is the official "law" changed? No. When Shakespeare made new words, his words would have to be semi-commonly used before Oxford would about accept them. Were they official words? By your definition, no. But what if they were more widely used than an "official" word? If the English language we speak doesn't match what might be considered "official", then what language are we speaking? Hmm, I didn't know "ain't" was accepted by Oxford... Kind of nice, but not really that relevant. My apologies for that mistake. Actually, if you look at my post again, I was CONTRASTING math and English because of the reasons you mentioned: Math is pretty straightforward (although, by the definition of official, i suppose math's rules aren't official... We don't NEED a committee to define them). If anyone was comparing them, you were in the first post (although not in depth, of the two of us you were the one technically comparing them; the reason I mentioned math was to address your point). That is why I compared English more closely to science, which, unlike math, is not sold, but rather is a collection of theories that are generally accepted by the scientific community and others, and that are constantly being refined and updated. Granted, the laws of nature that they attempt to define are (most likely) unchanging and unobjective. But even these are not "official", because no public authority is defining them, other than theories intended to understand their rules. Really, a theme seems to exist that things which were not just "created" tend to have no official rules. Because no one went and said "I'll invent a language that I will call English), English's growth has been more natural than artificial... People saying what works to communicate and language traditions bring formed from that. Thus, if we attempt to artificially impose rules, and insist that they are official, is it really the same language? Is this creation yeast really English? Everything, clearly, does NOT have official rules, however, this point is of little relevance to the true argument. I would also like to point out that, while law can be more fluid, you cannot have the law without official rules. However, English, very clearly, HAS existed without "official rules". Because of this, there is a great deal of difference between what you are comparing, and it would help if you could try using another example as well, rather than one where official rules are naturally part of the system, raster than being artificially produced. In those situations, adding rules requires changing the system itself. If English has official rules that didn't always exist, it must be considered a new language, one that is based on artificial concepts, that doesn't require the feature to already be present in natural language, and that I have no business speaking. The language wasn't artificially created with "official rules" in mind, so they cannot be added. And, if this were the case, then what are most people speaking? Can you correct someone based off of a language they do not speak, whose system was created after that of their own? I do not think that this is how the condition of the English language is. Like I said, Oxford only has the power that you give it. So, how does that count as authority that it isn't ours to bestow, whose rights were held by people long past, who didn't care about a need for official over unofficial rules I believe that this is my last chance to speak in this debate, and there is more that I could say. However, I think the question that is really important is "what IS the English language, and what must it be in order for it to have official rules"? Are they the same answer? I hope that everyone reading, including my opponent, have been able to change and refine their views and opinions. I have, to an extent, refined my understanding. After all, isn't that why we debate? To make a difference? I thank you for your find reading that farewell/conclusion that strayed from the topic, and I hope you ponder the arguments before you vote. I now, finally, turn the stage over to my well-spoken opponent. Good day and good bye, -Owl