It is the English language. The language was spoken in England for a thousand years before it was spoken anywhere else. It was created and formed entirely in England. No one but the Chinese can define how to properly speak Chinese. Imagine a Brit informing India that its language had changed, and if they continued using the form of their language they had used for millenia, they would be incorrect, or even "pompous" as someone said. The statement "the proper rules of the English language were decided in England" seems obvious to me. Please let an Englishman answer the question

What they say is what I am asking them. I'm interested to know. We should generally defer to the English on the rules of the English language, not assume that our way is right because it is common here. If you take an English exam in college, you can't make up grammar as you go along, on the grounds that it is in "common use". Grammar implies standardized rules that do not change, unless officially changed by a relevant authority. Common local dialect is distinct from a grammatical rule. There is also some distinction between American and British English, but it is their language.

Can someone who is competent to answer the question please answer the question, rather than offering criticisms of the question itself, or resorting to name calling? It is a legitimate question that pertains to the exact purpose that this website exists to serve.

You are incorrect in claiming that there is no official authority that decides grammar rules. There is, both in England and the United States. In England, there is a Standing Committee on Grammatical Reform, and there were official grammar manuals of sorts called "King's English" in 1906 and "Modern English Usage" in 1926. Most importanly, however, and pertinent to this conversation, is King Alfred's deliberate codification of English grammar in the 9th century when he set about making his people literate for the first time, which is why any of us are speaking English today.

Correction, there was a Standing Committee on Grammatical Reform. Nonetheless, governments adopt curricula for their schools, and those curricula include a standardization of English (not American) grammar. This is simply a fact, not an opinion. This is why English is one language, and not 20 different languages. It is also a fact that virtually all English grammar rules were established in England. It was English schoolmasters who taught America how to read and write our language. This is indisputable. You'd be well advised to accept that fact and move on.

A few commenters are acting unabashedly arrogantly, as if the nature of another people's language, which we're using, is something that our country can decide fpr the nation that created the language, where virtually all of its history of development occurred. As soon as the world starts speaking American instead of English, we can tell England what the proper rules of English are. Let's not forget that what motivated this question was partly the claim that English use of grammar was not only irrelevant, but improper and "pompous". That was posted on this website without a complaint.

@GabrielM you would be well advised to take an introductory class on linguistics to reset your understanding of what language is and how it works, because it is clear you have a deeply embedded but fundamentally wrong understanding.

You are of the opinion that there are no rules for language, and I am of the opinion that a language does not exist without rules, and rules are indeed codified and formal, which is how language can be taught. The fact is, no one in America or Africa tells France what proper French grammar is, the Swiss do not presume to have the power to decide what High German grammar is, and the list goes on and on. If a language is associate with a specific people or country, by name, then that people is who we should look to for the rules of the language.

Imagine all the things a person would be called if they decided that they could decide the rules of grammar for Somali or Swahili. We speak English, we didn't invent it, and we do not have a right to dictate its rules. Changes might be made in the common vernacular, but the grammar remains what it was when it was codified by English authorities and institutions, beginning with Alfred. The only reason we're even having this conversation is because America is the one and only English speaking country that can impose its will on England by force if it so desires, but that doesn't make it right.

Your representation of what my opinion is as incorrect as your own understanding of how language works. Please, stop embarrassing yourself and go read What Language Is by John McWhorter or How Language Works by David Crystal.

So you are claiming that it is not your opinion that language has no rules, or is it that the rules of language are not formally codified? This is typical academic hog wash, in my opinion. People spend their whole lives teaching the rules, and then they think they can just make them up as they go along. It doesn't work that way. Grammar is formal, only dialect and vernacular is fluid, but that is still a deviation from grammar.

Yep, sorry, but that's nonsense. Of course language has rules, but they are an emergent property of actual usage. This is the accepted scientific understanding of how language works. Ask any linguist. If you have an alternate theory of language that revolves around committees making formal rulings about grammar, that is a discredited concept up there with flat earth and astrology and phrenology.

When in Rome, use proper Latin grammar, and perform the Etruscan Rites according to the traditional laws of the priesthood, for Jove's sake! No, rules are not emergent. Rules are rules. Deviation from rules is emergent. If you had your way, Britain, America, Canada, Australia and India would not be able to communicate with each other, because they would be speaking completely separate languages, which becomes inevitable when you do not have a common set of formal, grammatical rules.

"which becomes inevitable when you do not have a common set of formal, grammatical rules" [[citation needed]]

Open a copy of Shakespeare. You will discover two important things in that cited reference. 1. We use almost the exact same grammar as Shakespeare, with extremely minor variations, and the only real differences are in vocabulary and dialect, which is why I can read Shakespeare. 2. A Latin speaker would be totally incapable of reading Shakespeare, as would a German, because English became so different (intentionally) from those languages, grammatically and otherwise, that it became a different language that was unintelligible to Germans and Romans, even though English is a variation on the two.

Not only are the factual claims made in the previous comment false, even if they were true, it still wouldn't be evidence to support the claim that separate languages form when you do not have a common set of formal grammatical rules. You clearly are interested in how language works—rather than arguing with internet strangers who know more than you, why don't you take some time and learn some real linguistics?