Do grammar rules matter anymore

Do grammar rules matter anymore?


Them course of does.
Necessary speaker’s part on grammar are knowing who in order to word word-bit and put, them also the words also word-bits in also then with part listener when for way interpreting by.
According: speaking total musts to having way of knowing where is word and word-bit (also morpheme).
Calls “rules” we do; rules-grammar-less see yours gibberish like have that this.
[1]
Ever how, although, think I you about ask what-what our be in business’s linguistics’s would prescriptive rules grammar call: “Not end preposition with an sentence”, “Comma use Oxford” or, or what: that learn in school native anglophones rules and not the rules the us am babies without realize really learning we are them.
[2]
So as ask, do rules these anymore matter? Days’s These People all failing are follows to the prescriptive rules, why so bother did we even them with?
Two sides to this there are.
Side the first, one that that, these most of other answers getting at are, that is learned these do rules matter.
The logic silly is the bit, but it to-amounts that since they rules are can you learn only in school, write with rules those show that you to school have been, you education have been, and being, that education, you more are worth listening to some than crackpot random.

More further, that what you learn school is inevitable some variant Standard English’s.
Every English’s dialect little different the next from is – in some cases, different so from next that people-people speaks two wildly divergent forms English have’ll trouble, or outright are unable to can, understand one another.
[3] In handful cases, such as of Scots, accept speakers will their differences and their writing update to match the speaking.

For, though, most, they’ll attempt to differences bridging by learning a standard dialect language’s: Standard English, in our language’s case’s.
(Sure, there’s Standard American English, Standard British English, Standard Australian English, and so on, but they’re enough similar to haves few to no communication troubles.
) So benefit of learning Standard English’s grammar rules is two folded: you show that you’re educated, and you have an more easy time communicating with anglophones from an other world’s part.

But the other side is, as I’ve did cover a lot before, languages change.
They changes all the time, they change in myriad of ways, and they change whether or not we want them to.
Words change; sounds change; and so too do grammar rules, informally just as well as formally.
It used to be commonly place to hear people use “whom” casually, but it’s since fallen out of use; it’s taken formal language some time to catch up, but “whom” is steadily making its way out there, too.

This is where it gets interesting, and where the confusing bits start popping up.
Usually, formal and informal forms of a language are identical: in both formal and informal language, “The cat is over there” is fine; similarly, you wouldn’t say “Cat the over there is” in either formal or informal English.

However, that little crevice between a change taking place in informal language and that same change taking place in formal language, as in the “whom” example above – that’s where the grammar rules you learn in school come from.
That’s all the prescriptive grammar rules are: bleed, linguistic dissonance, between talking to your friends and talking on the news.

What you know of prescriptive grammar rules is not a permanent concept: it changes from year to year.
Singular “they” and figurative “literally” are steadily moving from informal to formal English; “whom” and its ilk are moving out.
Will English fall apart into a puddle of mush? Well, it’s been changing in the same sorts of ways for the past 50 000–150 000 years – since the dawn of language itself – and it seems to be doin’ pretty good so far.
(Not to mention that there have never been any recorded cases of languages falling apart into unintelligible mush, except for perhaps Danish.
)
Standard English is only a standard dialect that all speakers of all dialects of a language can learn to talk to one another, anyway.
It’s important, in that it allows you to communicate with people who don’t speak your dialect, and in that it shows you’re educated, but that’s about it: it’s not especially “more correct” than any other dialect.
It’s just a dialect, that’s all.

To answer your question, yes, grammar rules do matter, in that they help us communicate.
These rules change, and there’s not much you can do about that.
Learning the rules of the standard language is definitely useful, both for showing you know what you’re talking about and to talk with people you wouldn’t otherwise be able to talk to, but it’s not an objective standard to which all other dialects are held.

In fact, informally, the standard is usually inappropriate.
Language is a social tool, so how you speak matters just as much as what you say.
You’ve probably heard this Nelson Mandela quote:
If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head.
If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.

The same goes for dialects.
Speak to your friends or family in a standard dialect and, while they’ll understand you, it will seem wrong somehow – a little colder, not quite as friendly.
Speak to them with the dialect you’ve spoken to them as long as you’ve known them and, well, that goes to their heart.

¡Ask for thanking


To break the rules, you have to know them first.

The speakers of a language can break rules, if it conveys the same meaning, but they can’t break all of them, otherwise, it would be impossible to understand anything.
That’s what matters.
How well can others understand you.
Everything else is commentary.

I’m multilingual, and I mix languages all the time.
No grammar allows that, and yet, the meaning is, more often than not, very clear.
When Yoda says – “Do or do not.
There is no try”, I guarantee that every English speaker can understand him, and yet, the grammar is incorrect.
On the other hand, saying that weird Buffalo sentence does not really convey any meaning, despite being grammatically correct.
And “me and Apoorva went for dinner yesterday”, conveys perfect meaning, so go ahead, break those rules.

However, most rules are ingrained in the language so much, they cannot be broken without losing meaning.
You cannot say – “never life me hurt”.
It’s hard to convey meaning with that sentence.
It takes time and effort for a regular English speaker to understand it, and thus, your words aren’t doing their job.

I personally detest the grammatically correct subculture, who insist the language will become less understandable, when we have been understanding just fine with all the changes a language has undertaken since it’s advent.
But ignore them all, and you miss the point of language.


It’s arguable.

I’m inclined to write that grammar rules do matter – but, we have more liberty with the grammar.
I have a perfect example for this.

The horse raced past the barn fell.

Now, is this sentence grammatically correct?
Of course it is.

This is an example of a reduced relative clause – it lets us say clauses such as ‘the speech given this morning’ instead of ‘the speech that was given this morning’.

Here, the reduced relative clause is saying ‘the horse raced’ instead of ‘the horse that was raced’.

That means the sentence actually reads, “The horse, that was raced past the barn, fell.
” (It should be noted that I have only added the commas to distinguish the relative clause from the independent clause.
)
However, I did mention above about taking liberties.

Take this sentence for example:
This exceeding trifling witling, considering ranting criticising concerning adopting fitting wording being exhibiting transcending learning, was displaying, notwithstanding ridiculing, surpassing boasting swelling reasoning, respecting correcting erring writing, and touching detecting deceiving arguing during debating.

Again, like the previous sentence, this one is perfectly correct in regards to grammar – but, I would be inclined to state that this a bit of a piss-take of a sentence.
After all, it abuses the idea that the use of the ‘-ing’ participle can be in great excess.

What this sentence actually means:
This very superficial grammatist, supposing empty criticism about the adoption of proper phraseology to be a show of extraordinary erudition, was displaying, in spite of ridicule, a very boastful turgid argument concerning the correction of false syntax, and about the detection of false logic in debate.

So, in answer to the question, I believe that grammar rules still matter, but we are free to bend the rules to fit our own ideals.
However, don’t take too much liberty with grammar, for you could end up with some really weird sentences, like the above one.


Look, Grammar is supposed to matter where it should; no more, no less.

Usually, we have two forms of any language:
Native speakers of any language tend to “break” the solid form when it suits them for reasons ranging from short-cuts to ease of use to fun factor.

However, Foreign Speakers are not that fortunate here when it comes to taking the liberty of “playing” with the standard form of the Language.

Maybe, that's the beauty of Speaking it with that “lived with” sense… since we first learned to talk in that native language.

Your language is synonymous with your breath!
This is why I urge my advice seekers and Quora readers to get to know as much Solid form of English as you can actively manage… after that, how and when you break is a matter of mere joy for you because you now know the punishment and rewards equally.

One thing we must be definitely clear about: Grammar's only role is to help you speak and express yourself through that.
.
if that's somehow missing.
.
then something's seriously wrong with the way you are being “served” here.

Grammar is the tool for the material of words.
.
the better the tool, the nicer the outcome.

Hope it helps you get the whole idea!


Yes, grammar rules do still matter — in situations where people care about accuracy, clarity, appearances, professionalism, graciousness, education, truth, logic, consistency, beauty, etc.

I am a technical writer and editor, and people are willing to pay me for the privilege of making their work understandable, clear, and easy to read.
I edit the grammar when needed, and I also fix spelling, logic, and word flow.

Some of my recent projects have included a Holocaust survivor's memoir, a cookbook for a protein supplement, a patent application written by a Romanian friend's patent application he planned to submit from Switzerland to the U.
S.
Patent and Trademark Office, and a couple of doctoral dissertations (one on energy and the environment a Moldovan friend submitted to a university in Germany, and one on leadership that is being done for a university in Virginia).


Grammar rules are like recipes: if you aren't fully sure what you're doing, then you’re better off following them, but the experts are free to play around a bit more.

What I mean is, most of the ‘rules’ will make your writing more clear, and many of them will make it nicer to read.
However, if you are a good enough writer that you no longer have to worry about being misunderstood, and you know how to make reading pleasant, then a preposition is a fine thing to end a sentence with.

now if your missing commas capital letters or refusing to use correct; punctuation or misusing words to make yourself seem photosynthesis, or indeed sentences arranging in way a incorrect, you will significantly distract from readability.
(Note to mods: the previous sentence is poorly formatted to prove a point).
The use of grammatical and punctuation rules is to avoid making mistakes that will have a similar effect to this that might be more subtle, for example there's a big difference between loving your sons, Dick and Fanny; and loving your son’s dick and fanny.


I am the one who sits in the back row of the School of Hard Knocks, and sometimes gets hit in the head with the board eraser that the teacher throws in frustration…
I do not know how I write.
I know a verb is a “doing” word, and a noun is a “person, place or thing.
” I know I ran into trouble learning French in school because nouns are feminine or masculine, whereas in English “the” is sufficient.

So many rules! But I think I would have been more able to learn another language had I paid attention to grammar in school, but to me it seemed like equations, both mathematical and scientific… I could never make the darn things balance.

I just tend to write as it comes out of my head.
I imagine if the “Grammar Nazi” picked an answer of mine apart they would find a lot wrong.
A real lot.

I am just happy if I can get my point across, and if it seems to flow well.
I am happy if somebody finds a blooper and lets me know if I have something wrong.
I am grateful for built in spell check, but I ignore it for the British spellings that I use.

I hope I keep nice paragraphs.
I am kind of proud of my paragraphs.
Oh yes, I do remember one thing.
“Do not start every paragraph with “The”.
That was a blast from the past.

I see it this way.
Everybody here has their own personal style of writing, and if that’s that works for them, what’s not to love? Your own style of writing is who YOU are.
It’s how you present yourself here.

Be the YOU that you are!


I would argue that grammar rules in fact do not matter.

There are answers here that suggest if we didn't have grammar rules then our writing would absolutely lack coherence.
That is not the case.

In fact, language works well without grammar rules, but to understand this properly we need to remind ourselves what grammar rules are.

Grammar rules are generalizations about how we commonly use language.
They are an approximate description of how language is used.
In other words language is used and then we describe it: grammar rules are created.
I should also point out that English in particular is not a grammar-based language, hence why there are so many exceptions to the ‘rules’.

It is perfectly possible to speak and write well without learning grammar rules.
We can roughly liken it to playing a musical instrument without reading music.

I do, however, believe that learning grammar rules can be helpful if one wants to learn a new language, and it is fundamental if one wants to reach a specific competency with language such as being a proofreader.

Grammar rules are useful, but not necessary.


They do, like it or not.
It is like your pin code.
You forget it and you’re lost.
Completely lost.
Every language has examples of sentences where even a comma means life or death.
In Russian there is the sentence “to kill never mercy” and you have to put a comma to decide “to kill – never mercy” or “to kill never – mercy”.
I know it’s kind of bumpy in English but there are the same examples as well although no so critical.

An English professor wrote the words "A woman without her man is nothing" on the blackboard and asked his students to punctuate it correctly.

All of the males in the class wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing.
"
All the females in the class wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing.
"


Do grammar rules matter anymore?
order thing without grammar words structure clearly right the of word major any you youd rules any terms understand words broken to out important you rules is conjugation how determines make in issues extremely is I it that the to build and think in its suppose the perfectly of only The conjugation this put word Now of completely sentence can order are if right since were these sentences and as especially do is its see that the that you punctuation impossible grammatical are to sense
As you can clearly see, grammar is extremely important.
I bet you can’t even make out any message in that text and I’d be damn impressed if you could.
Grammar is exceptionally important in all languages, without rules there would be nothing to say how you should adress your message.
It’s basically a cook book of how you should say something.

So yes, grammar rules matter and will probably always matter.


It depends what you mean by grammar rules, and what you consider to be grammatically correct.
For example, take the following sentence:
Them sheeps is well nice, innit?
It’s not something I would say, but I would regard it as being a grammatically correct English sentence.

Why? Because it follows the subject-verb-object word order of English, a demonstrative, a noun, a copula verb, an intensifier and an adjective, and has a questioning tag at the end.

However, as it’s a register of English that is most likely to be used by people who are stuck in in a deprived area of London, it’s not one that I’d use in an interview for a job in, say, a law firm.

Some English rules are impositions from Latin, like the one that it’s incorrect to split an infinitive, or to end a sentence with a preposition, which in other Germanic languages is correct.

As regards ‘less’ and ‘fewer’, even that was originally an imposition from Norse on Anglo-Saxon, as other West Germanic languages do not make the distinction, whereas Scandinavian ones do.

That said, I do get tired of people talking about how ‘language is evolving’, which is all hippyish ‘let it go’ nonsense – yes, language evolves, but not the same way as animal or plant species do.

Given that animals can be cross-bred and plants can be genetically modified, meaning that change doesn’t all happen ‘naturally’, why should human language be seen as any different?
Just because things like the Great Vowel Shift happened to English in the past doesn’t mean that they need to happen in the future, now that we live in an era of electronic communication.

I rarely ever correct people’s grammar, but I’m not averse to having mine corrected, like when it was pointed out to me by someone that I was saying ‘the thing is, is…’ instead of ‘the thing is, that…’
Rather than be resentful, I thanked the person concerned, and looked up the term for this, which is the double copula, the copula verb in question being ‘to be’, hence it also being called the ‘double is’.

No one may like what is known as a ‘grammar scold’, but such people are no worse than any other kind of ‘scold’, or any more priggish.
As for the sentence quoted above, this is what I would use:
Those sheep are really nice, aren’t they?
Different registers of a language are like different types of clothing – they’re not good or bad in themselves, but they’re better in some situations than they are in others.
Innit?


Grammar rules never mattered.
But grammar itself matters because grammar is how we turn words into ideas.

Many grammar rules are snobbish shibboleths that have no purpose at all other than to demonstrate the education of the pompous pedants who insist on them.
But the good ones are there to facilitate clear, unambiguous communication – to make sure that when I read something you write, I understand the thought you were trying to express.

The main reason that is necessary is that language is always evolving, and with a language like English that is spoken by millions of people around the world, if it is left to evolve unchecked, it will quickly split into multiple variants.
Having generally accepted principles of grammar helps to prevent that from happening, by maintaining a hold on a common written English (which itself evolves, but is at least mutually comprehensible through multiple communities)


Right are it you possible is to understand this that.
To but, easier follows rely it's if can a on understand pattern you .
Other’s hard pattern, a to agree it’s of understand make to so of that ways say without of very we way on us sense certain all to speech.
Rules call “” these grammar we.









(You are right that it is possible to understand this.
But, it’s easier to understand if you can rely on it following a pattern.
Without a pattern, it’s very hard to understand others’ way of speech, so we agree on ways to say certain things that make sense to all of us.
We call these rules “grammar”)
That was just switching words around, I could’ve done much more if I wanted to, I probably fell into some predictable pattern at some point.
Grammar is the only way we can efficiently communicate, it’s very important.


?Me, be thinks grammer; rule no matter” no anymore,
Was the message of the above clear and concise?
Did it convey the message it intended to as best as possible?
Without grammar rules, language would be a mess.

There would confusion in even the most simple of sentences, and misinterpretation would be ubiquitous.

Here's an anecdote my English teacher showed me:
grammar saves lives


No.
Rules is important not.
You want speak speak you! Understand if not somebody, problem their it is!
Get all that? If it seemed awkward and a bit like gibberish, that’s because grammar matters.
Grammar is like the skeleton of a language; just as your body would sag and collapse if your bones were removed, language does not function without grammar.

Now, you may or may not have noticed that I am avoiding the word “rules”.
Is this deliberate? Yes it is, thanks for asking.

You see, I feel the word “rules” creates the wrong mindset about grammar.
Rather than “rules”, I prefer to refer to “principles” and the distinction is not just semantic.

Grammar does not consist of a bunch of arbitrary made-up rules that must be followed on pain of stern disapproval by grumpy old teachers with miserable sex lives, but rather of a series of meaningful principles that enable us to construct meaningful utterances.
In other words, grammar helps refine and express meaning.

The difference between someone with a good command of English and a poor command of English comes down to their ability to employ the subtle principles of grammar (and vocabulary of course) to convey precise nuances in meaning.

So, yes, grammar does matter-a lot.
Forget about “rules” and focus on meaning and function.
Making grammatical errors impairs communication, sometimes in minor, forgiveable ways and sometimes in ways that cause your utterances to collapse into gibberish or convey meanings you did not intend.


I have a Ph.
D.
in English and taught college writing courses for more than 30 years.
English grammar is based on word order.
I’ve never read a single student paper that violated the basic structure of a sentence in English: “Dog the at barked the man” would be bad grammar.

Very few mistakes fall into the category of “grammar.
” I would list pronoun case, subject-verb agreement, and misplaced modifiers as examples of bad grammar.

What I have seen – over and over and over! – are usage mistakes.
“Ain’t” is not bad grammar.
Sentences with “ain’t” can be diagrammed perfectly.
Spelling errors, misplaced apostrophes, and so on fall into the category of usage.
That’s where most problems lie.

I often hear slang and colloquial words mixed in with formal English – but again, that’s usage, not a grammar issue,


My observation is that misspelling and incorrect grammar may become SO widespread that if you try to correct it no one will understand you.
Change in customary usage may be happening so fast that proper English might soon become obscure and irrelevant.

Brings to mind Walter J.
Ong’s research on secondary orality.
I wonder what he would have had to say about all our online verbiage.


Rules in grammar is because necessary unless under these you just will no am able to sense make to which persons is say or written even though she might were possibly two dispensed by whatever single rule then still was understood.


Grammar rules matter for most people answering those questions.
And I agree they do matter to some degree, but, hey, I though language should be evolving.
These same people will say it, but then they will come here and tell us: “Hey, not so quick, Bucko!”
How some wish that these same zealots were just as devoted to the spelling rules.
I mean the regular spelling rules.
The silent “e” types! Apparently, that is not a problem! Twisted people and their twisted logic! Soon up will be down!
Improving English spelling


Most rules still matter a great deal; those rules determine how well you can communicate verbally and in writing.
These are important life skills.

Some rules no longer matter because a language is a living thing; over time it changes.

I was taught never to begin a sentence with “ And” or "But".
That rule is gone.

Also gone is the idea of never ending a sentence with a preposition.

No problem… Be happy…


Yes.
Although some rules are more important then others and some are optional and/ or debated.

Proper conjugation of verbs, fir example, is essential.

Using an Oxford comma, isn’t (although some will debate it is…)
The important grammar rules are the cornerstone of proper writing and speaking, i.
e.
convening ideas in a clear manner.

On the other hand there are a LOT of grammar rules that are obsolete or superfluous as well.


Do grammar rules matter anymore?
I just answered a similar question – so similar I'm wondering if the questions should be collapsed.
See John Ruchak's answer to Why are some people so obsessed with proper spellings/right use of words/proper grammar? Can't we just take it easy and try to feel/understand what the writer wants to convey overall?


i helped my uncle jack off our horse
or
I helped my uncle Jack off our horse.


She likes cooking cats and rabbits
or
She likes cooking, cats, and rabbits.


They invited two strippers, Trump and May.

or
They invited two strippers, Trump, and May.


Do grammar rules matter anymore?


Grammar rules that matter, matter, while grammar rules that don’t, don’t.

I have more than once been entangled with individuals who insist that the Oxford comma is the be-all and end-all of grammar.

“Yeah, but if you said ‘I’m hanging out with the strippers, Dick Cheney and The Pope’ people would think that Dick Cheney and The Pope were strippers! You have to have the Oxford comma or the world descends into chaos!”
Or, or.
“I’m hanging out with Dick Cheney, the strippers and The Pope.

No Oxford comma.
Still totally understandable.

I’m not against the Oxford comma, understand, I just think it’s… overblown.
I use it when it helps with clarity, but otherwise, it’s not a huge deal.

Other grammar rules get way too much focus for how little they add to communication.

Less versus fewer.
Ending sentences with prepositions.
Splitting infinitives (does anyone even care about this one anymore?).

Tell me.
If I say “I have less items in my shopping cart than that guy over there,” are you in any way confused about my message?
Do you not understand what I’m saying, solely because I have used “less” instead of “fewer”?
No?
Then why does it matter?
“But once we allow those little mistakes,” you say, “The language is going to slowly become a meaningless pile of nothing! It’ll be like speaking in text lingo all the time!”
I’m not sold on that.

I think we can insist upon good grammar when it helps us to communicate.
I just don’t think some of the old rules people still tout as being “good grammar” are meaningful.

So grammar rules do matter—without them, we can’t communicate.

But some grammar rules are relatively useless, and we’d be better off not enforcing them.


Them course of does.
Necessary speaker’s part on grammar are knowing who in order to word word-bit and put, them also the words also word-bits in also then with part listener when for way interpreting by.
According: speaking total musts to having way of knowing where is word and word-bit (also morpheme).
Calls “rules” we do; rules-grammar-less see yours gibberish like have that this.
[1]
Ever how, although, think I you about ask what-what our be in business’s linguistics’s would prescriptive rules grammar call: “Not end preposition with an sentence”, “Comma use Oxford” or, or what: that learn in school native anglophones rules and not the rules the us am babies without realize really learning we are them.
[2]
So as ask, do rules these anymore matter? Days’s These People all failing are follows to the prescriptive rules, why so bother did we even them with?
Two sides to this there are.
Side the first, one that that, these most of other answers getting at are, that is learned these do rules matter.
The logic silly is the bit, but it to-amounts that since they rules are can you learn only in school, write with rules those show that you to school have been, you education have been, and being, that education, you more are worth listening to some than crackpot random.

More further, that what you learn school is inevitable some variant Standard English’s.
Every English’s dialect little different the next from is – in some cases, different so from next that people-people speaks two wildly divergent forms English have’ll trouble, or outright are unable to can, understand one another.
[3] In handful cases, such as of Scots, accept speakers will their differences and their writing update to match the speaking.

For, though, most, they’ll attempt to differences bridging by learning a standard dialect language’s: Standard English, in our language’s case’s.
(Sure, there’s Standard American English, Standard British English, Standard Australian English, and so on, but they’re enough similar to haves few to no communication troubles.
) So benefit of learning Standard English’s grammar rules is two folded: you show that you’re educated, and you have an more easy time communicating with anglophones from an other world’s part.

But the other side is, as I’ve did cover a lot before, languages change.
They changes all the time, they change in myriad of ways, and they change whether or not we want them to.
Words change; sounds change; and so too do grammar rules, informally just as well as formally.
It used to be commonly place to hear people use “whom” casually, but it’s since fallen out of use; it’s taken formal language some time to catch up, but “whom” is steadily making its way out there, too.

This is where it gets interesting, and where the confusing bits start popping up.
Usually, formal and informal forms of a language are identical: in both formal and informal language, “The cat is over there” is fine; similarly, you wouldn’t say “Cat the over there is” in either formal or informal English.

However, that little crevice between a change taking place in informal language and that same change taking place in formal language, as in the “whom” example above – that’s where the grammar rules you learn in school come from.
That’s all the prescriptive grammar rules are: bleed, linguistic dissonance, between talking to your friends and talking on the news.

What you know of prescriptive grammar rules is not a permanent concept: it changes from year to year.
Singular “they” and figurative “literally” are steadily moving from informal to formal English; “whom” and its ilk are moving out.
Will English fall apart into a puddle of mush? Well, it’s been changing in the same sorts of ways for the past 50 000–150 000 years – since the dawn of language itself – and it seems to be doin’ pretty good so far.
(Not to mention that there have never been any recorded cases of languages falling apart into unintelligible mush, except for perhaps Danish.
)
Standard English is only a standard dialect that all speakers of all dialects of a language can learn to talk to one another, anyway.
It’s important, in that it allows you to communicate with people who don’t speak your dialect, and in that it shows you’re educated, but that’s about it: it’s not especially “more correct” than any other dialect.
It’s just a dialect, that’s all.

To answer your question, yes, grammar rules do matter, in that they help us communicate.
These rules change, and there’s not much you can do about that.
Learning the rules of the standard language is definitely useful, both for showing you know what you’re talking about and to talk with people you wouldn’t otherwise be able to talk to, but it’s not an objective standard to which all other dialects are held.

In fact, informally, the standard is usually inappropriate.
Language is a social tool, so how you speak matters just as much as what you say.
You’ve probably heard this Nelson Mandela quote:
If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head.
If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.

The same goes for dialects.
Speak to your friends or family in a standard dialect and, while they’ll understand you, it will seem wrong somehow – a little colder, not quite as friendly.
Speak to them with the dialect you’ve spoken to them as long as you’ve known them and, well, that goes to their heart.

¡Ask for thanking


To break the rules, you have to know them first.

The speakers of a language can break rules, if it conveys the same meaning, but they can’t break all of them, otherwise, it would be impossible to understand anything.
That’s what matters.
How well can others understand you.
Everything else is commentary.

I’m multilingual, and I mix languages all the time.
No grammar allows that, and yet, the meaning is, more often than not, very clear.
When Yoda says – “Do or do not.
There is no try”, I guarantee that every English speaker can understand him, and yet, the grammar is incorrect.
On the other hand, saying that weird Buffalo sentence does not really convey any meaning, despite being grammatically correct.
And “me and Apoorva went for dinner yesterday”, conveys perfect meaning, so go ahead, break those rules.

However, most rules are ingrained in the language so much, they cannot be broken without losing meaning.
You cannot say – “never life me hurt”.
It’s hard to convey meaning with that sentence.
It takes time and effort for a regular English speaker to understand it, and thus, your words aren’t doing their job.

I personally detest the grammatically correct subculture, who insist the language will become less understandable, when we have been understanding just fine with all the changes a language has undertaken since it’s advent.
But ignore them all, and you miss the point of language.


It’s arguable.

I’m inclined to write that grammar rules do matter – but, we have more liberty with the grammar.
I have a perfect example for this.

The horse raced past the barn fell.

Now, is this sentence grammatically correct?
Of course it is.

This is an example of a reduced relative clause – it lets us say clauses such as ‘the speech given this morning’ instead of ‘the speech that was given this morning’.

Here, the reduced relative clause is saying ‘the horse raced’ instead of ‘the horse that was raced’.

That means the sentence actually reads, “The horse, that was raced past the barn, fell.
” (It should be noted that I have only added the commas to distinguish the relative clause from the independent clause.
)
However, I did mention above about taking liberties.

Take this sentence for example:
This exceeding trifling witling, considering ranting criticising concerning adopting fitting wording being exhibiting transcending learning, was displaying, notwithstanding ridiculing, surpassing boasting swelling reasoning, respecting correcting erring writing, and touching detecting deceiving arguing during debating.

Again, like the previous sentence, this one is perfectly correct in regards to grammar – but, I would be inclined to state that this a bit of a piss-take of a sentence.
After all, it abuses the idea that the use of the ‘-ing’ participle can be in great excess.

What this sentence actually means:
This very superficial grammatist, supposing empty criticism about the adoption of proper phraseology to be a show of extraordinary erudition, was displaying, in spite of ridicule, a very boastful turgid argument concerning the correction of false syntax, and about the detection of false logic in debate.

So, in answer to the question, I believe that grammar rules still matter, but we are free to bend the rules to fit our own ideals.
However, don’t take too much liberty with grammar, for you could end up with some really weird sentences, like the above one.


Look, Grammar is supposed to matter where it should; no more, no less.

Usually, we have two forms of any language:
Native speakers of any language tend to “break” the solid form when it suits them for reasons ranging from short-cuts to ease of use to fun factor.

However, Foreign Speakers are not that fortunate here when it comes to taking the liberty of “playing” with the standard form of the Language.

Maybe, that's the beauty of Speaking it with that “lived with” sense… since we first learned to talk in that native language.

Your language is synonymous with your breath!
This is why I urge my advice seekers and Quora readers to get to know as much Solid form of English as you can actively manage… after that, how and when you break is a matter of mere joy for you because you now know the punishment and rewards equally.

One thing we must be definitely clear about: Grammar's only role is to help you speak and express yourself through that.
.
if that's somehow missing.
.
then something's seriously wrong with the way you are being “served” here.

Grammar is the tool for the material of words.
.
the better the tool, the nicer the outcome.

Hope it helps you get the whole idea!


Yes, grammar rules do still matter — in situations where people care about accuracy, clarity, appearances, professionalism, graciousness, education, truth, logic, consistency, beauty, etc.

I am a technical writer and editor, and people are willing to pay me for the privilege of making their work understandable, clear, and easy to read.
I edit the grammar when needed, and I also fix spelling, logic, and word flow.

Some of my recent projects have included a Holocaust survivor's memoir, a cookbook for a protein supplement, a patent application written by a Romanian friend's patent application he planned to submit from Switzerland to the U.
S.
Patent and Trademark Office, and a couple of doctoral dissertations (one on energy and the environment a Moldovan friend submitted to a university in Germany, and one on leadership that is being done for a university in Virginia).


Grammar rules are like recipes: if you aren't fully sure what you're doing, then you’re better off following them, but the experts are free to play around a bit more.

What I mean is, most of the ‘rules’ will make your writing more clear, and many of them will make it nicer to read.
However, if you are a good enough writer that you no longer have to worry about being misunderstood, and you know how to make reading pleasant, then a preposition is a fine thing to end a sentence with.

now if your missing commas capital letters or refusing to use correct; punctuation or misusing words to make yourself seem photosynthesis, or indeed sentences arranging in way a incorrect, you will significantly distract from readability.
(Note to mods: the previous sentence is poorly formatted to prove a point).
The use of grammatical and punctuation rules is to avoid making mistakes that will have a similar effect to this that might be more subtle, for example there's a big difference between loving your sons, Dick and Fanny; and loving your son’s dick and fanny.


I am the one who sits in the back row of the School of Hard Knocks, and sometimes gets hit in the head with the board eraser that the teacher throws in frustration…
I do not know how I write.
I know a verb is a “doing” word, and a noun is a “person, place or thing.
” I know I ran into trouble learning French in school because nouns are feminine or masculine, whereas in English “the” is sufficient.

So many rules! But I think I would have been more able to learn another language had I paid attention to grammar in school, but to me it seemed like equations, both mathematical and scientific… I could never make the darn things balance.

I just tend to write as it comes out of my head.
I imagine if the “Grammar Nazi” picked an answer of mine apart they would find a lot wrong.
A real lot.

I am just happy if I can get my point across, and if it seems to flow well.
I am happy if somebody finds a blooper and lets me know if I have something wrong.
I am grateful for built in spell check, but I ignore it for the British spellings that I use.

I hope I keep nice paragraphs.
I am kind of proud of my paragraphs.
Oh yes, I do remember one thing.
“Do not start every paragraph with “The”.
That was a blast from the past.

I see it this way.
Everybody here has their own personal style of writing, and if that’s that works for them, what’s not to love? Your own style of writing is who YOU are.
It’s how you present yourself here.

Be the YOU that you are!


I would argue that grammar rules in fact do not matter.

There are answers here that suggest if we didn't have grammar rules then our writing would absolutely lack coherence.
That is not the case.

In fact, language works well without grammar rules, but to understand this properly we need to remind ourselves what grammar rules are.

Grammar rules are generalizations about how we commonly use language.
They are an approximate description of how language is used.
In other words language is used and then we describe it: grammar rules are created.
I should also point out that English in particular is not a grammar-based language, hence why there are so many exceptions to the ‘rules’.

It is perfectly possible to speak and write well without learning grammar rules.
We can roughly liken it to playing a musical instrument without reading music.

I do, however, believe that learning grammar rules can be helpful if one wants to learn a new language, and it is fundamental if one wants to reach a specific competency with language such as being a proofreader.

Grammar rules are useful, but not necessary.


They do, like it or not.
It is like your pin code.
You forget it and you’re lost.
Completely lost.
Every language has examples of sentences where even a comma means life or death.
In Russian there is the sentence “to kill never mercy” and you have to put a comma to decide “to kill – never mercy” or “to kill never – mercy”.
I know it’s kind of bumpy in English but there are the same examples as well although no so critical.

An English professor wrote the words "A woman without her man is nothing" on the blackboard and asked his students to punctuate it correctly.

All of the males in the class wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing.
"
All the females in the class wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing.
"


Do grammar rules matter anymore?
order thing without grammar words structure clearly right the of word major any you youd rules any terms understand words broken to out important you rules is conjugation how determines make in issues extremely is I it that the to build and think in its suppose the perfectly of only The conjugation this put word Now of completely sentence can order are if right since were these sentences and as especially do is its see that the that you punctuation impossible grammatical are to sense
As you can clearly see, grammar is extremely important.
I bet you can’t even make out any message in that text and I’d be damn impressed if you could.
Grammar is exceptionally important in all languages, without rules there would be nothing to say how you should adress your message.
It’s basically a cook book of how you should say something.

So yes, grammar rules matter and will probably always matter.


It depends what you mean by grammar rules, and what you consider to be grammatically correct.
For example, take the following sentence:
Them sheeps is well nice, innit?
It’s not something I would say, but I would regard it as being a grammatically correct English sentence.

Why? Because it follows the subject-verb-object word order of English, a demonstrative, a noun, a copula verb, an intensifier and an adjective, and has a questioning tag at the end.

However, as it’s a register of English that is most likely to be used by people who are stuck in in a deprived area of London, it’s not one that I’d use in an interview for a job in, say, a law firm.

Some English rules are impositions from Latin, like the one that it’s incorrect to split an infinitive, or to end a sentence with a preposition, which in other Germanic languages is correct.

As regards ‘less’ and ‘fewer’, even that was originally an imposition from Norse on Anglo-Saxon, as other West Germanic languages do not make the distinction, whereas Scandinavian ones do.

That said, I do get tired of people talking about how ‘language is evolving’, which is all hippyish ‘let it go’ nonsense – yes, language evolves, but not the same way as animal or plant species do.

Given that animals can be cross-bred and plants can be genetically modified, meaning that change doesn’t all happen ‘naturally’, why should human language be seen as any different?
Just because things like the Great Vowel Shift happened to English in the past doesn’t mean that they need to happen in the future, now that we live in an era of electronic communication.

I rarely ever correct people’s grammar, but I’m not averse to having mine corrected, like when it was pointed out to me by someone that I was saying ‘the thing is, is…’ instead of ‘the thing is, that…’
Rather than be resentful, I thanked the person concerned, and looked up the term for this, which is the double copula, the copula verb in question being ‘to be’, hence it also being called the ‘double is’.

No one may like what is known as a ‘grammar scold’, but such people are no worse than any other kind of ‘scold’, or any more priggish.
As for the sentence quoted above, this is what I would use:
Those sheep are really nice, aren’t they?
Different registers of a language are like different types of clothing – they’re not good or bad in themselves, but they’re better in some situations than they are in others.
Innit?


Grammar rules never mattered.
But grammar itself matters because grammar is how we turn words into ideas.

Many grammar rules are snobbish shibboleths that have no purpose at all other than to demonstrate the education of the pompous pedants who insist on them.
But the good ones are there to facilitate clear, unambiguous communication – to make sure that when I read something you write, I understand the thought you were trying to express.

The main reason that is necessary is that language is always evolving, and with a language like English that is spoken by millions of people around the world, if it is left to evolve unchecked, it will quickly split into multiple variants.
Having generally accepted principles of grammar helps to prevent that from happening, by maintaining a hold on a common written English (which itself evolves, but is at least mutually comprehensible through multiple communities)


Right are it you possible is to understand this that.
To but, easier follows rely it's if can a on understand pattern you .
Other’s hard pattern, a to agree it’s of understand make to so of that ways say without of very we way on us sense certain all to speech.
Rules call “” these grammar we.









(You are right that it is possible to understand this.
But, it’s easier to understand if you can rely on it following a pattern.
Without a pattern, it’s very hard to understand others’ way of speech, so we agree on ways to say certain things that make sense to all of us.
We call these rules “grammar”)
That was just switching words around, I could’ve done much more if I wanted to, I probably fell into some predictable pattern at some point.
Grammar is the only way we can efficiently communicate, it’s very important.


?Me, be thinks grammer; rule no matter” no anymore,
Was the message of the above clear and concise?
Did it convey the message it intended to as best as possible?
Without grammar rules, language would be a mess.

There would confusion in even the most simple of sentences, and misinterpretation would be ubiquitous.

Here's an anecdote my English teacher showed me:
grammar saves lives


No.
Rules is important not.
You want speak speak you! Understand if not somebody, problem their it is!
Get all that? If it seemed awkward and a bit like gibberish, that’s because grammar matters.
Grammar is like the skeleton of a language; just as your body would sag and collapse if your bones were removed, language does not function without grammar.

Now, you may or may not have noticed that I am avoiding the word “rules”.
Is this deliberate? Yes it is, thanks for asking.

You see, I feel the word “rules” creates the wrong mindset about grammar.
Rather than “rules”, I prefer to refer to “principles” and the distinction is not just semantic.

Grammar does not consist of a bunch of arbitrary made-up rules that must be followed on pain of stern disapproval by grumpy old teachers with miserable sex lives, but rather of a series of meaningful principles that enable us to construct meaningful utterances.
In other words, grammar helps refine and express meaning.

The difference between someone with a good command of English and a poor command of English comes down to their ability to employ the subtle principles of grammar (and vocabulary of course) to convey precise nuances in meaning.

So, yes, grammar does matter-a lot.
Forget about “rules” and focus on meaning and function.
Making grammatical errors impairs communication, sometimes in minor, forgiveable ways and sometimes in ways that cause your utterances to collapse into gibberish or convey meanings you did not intend.


I have a Ph.
D.
in English and taught college writing courses for more than 30 years.
English grammar is based on word order.
I’ve never read a single student paper that violated the basic structure of a sentence in English: “Dog the at barked the man” would be bad grammar.

Very few mistakes fall into the category of “grammar.
” I would list pronoun case, subject-verb agreement, and misplaced modifiers as examples of bad grammar.

What I have seen – over and over and over! – are usage mistakes.
“Ain’t” is not bad grammar.
Sentences with “ain’t” can be diagrammed perfectly.
Spelling errors, misplaced apostrophes, and so on fall into the category of usage.
That’s where most problems lie.

I often hear slang and colloquial words mixed in with formal English – but again, that’s usage, not a grammar issue,


My observation is that misspelling and incorrect grammar may become SO widespread that if you try to correct it no one will understand you.
Change in customary usage may be happening so fast that proper English might soon become obscure and irrelevant.

Brings to mind Walter J.
Ong’s research on secondary orality.
I wonder what he would have had to say about all our online verbiage.


Rules in grammar is because necessary unless under these you just will no am able to sense make to which persons is say or written even though she might were possibly two dispensed by whatever single rule then still was understood.


Grammar rules matter for most people answering those questions.
And I agree they do matter to some degree, but, hey, I though language should be evolving.
These same people will say it, but then they will come here and tell us: “Hey, not so quick, Bucko!”
How some wish that these same zealots were just as devoted to the spelling rules.
I mean the regular spelling rules.
The silent “e” types! Apparently, that is not a problem! Twisted people and their twisted logic! Soon up will be down!
Improving English spelling


Most rules still matter a great deal; those rules determine how well you can communicate verbally and in writing.
These are important life skills.

Some rules no longer matter because a language is a living thing; over time it changes.

I was taught never to begin a sentence with “ And” or "But".
That rule is gone.

Also gone is the idea of never ending a sentence with a preposition.

No problem… Be happy…


Yes.
Although some rules are more important then others and some are optional and/ or debated.

Proper conjugation of verbs, fir example, is essential.

Using an Oxford comma, isn’t (although some will debate it is…)
The important grammar rules are the cornerstone of proper writing and speaking, i.
e.
convening ideas in a clear manner.

On the other hand there are a LOT of grammar rules that are obsolete or superfluous as well.


Do grammar rules matter anymore?
I just answered a similar question – so similar I'm wondering if the questions should be collapsed.
See John Ruchak's answer to Why are some people so obsessed with proper spellings/right use of words/proper grammar? Can't we just take it easy and try to feel/understand what the writer wants to convey overall?


i helped my uncle jack off our horse
or
I helped my uncle Jack off our horse.


She likes cooking cats and rabbits
or
She likes cooking, cats, and rabbits.


They invited two strippers, Trump and May.

or
They invited two strippers, Trump, and May.


Do grammar rules matter anymore?


Grammar rules that matter, matter, while grammar rules that don’t, don’t.

I have more than once been entangled with individuals who insist that the Oxford comma is the be-all and end-all of grammar.

“Yeah, but if you said ‘I’m hanging out with the strippers, Dick Cheney and The Pope’ people would think that Dick Cheney and The Pope were strippers! You have to have the Oxford comma or the world descends into chaos!”
Or, or.
“I’m hanging out with Dick Cheney, the strippers and The Pope.

No Oxford comma.
Still totally understandable.

I’m not against the Oxford comma, understand, I just think it’s… overblown.
I use it when it helps with clarity, but otherwise, it’s not a huge deal.

Other grammar rules get way too much focus for how little they add to communication.

Less versus fewer.
Ending sentences with prepositions.
Splitting infinitives (does anyone even care about this one anymore?).

Tell me.
If I say “I have less items in my shopping cart than that guy over there,” are you in any way confused about my message?
Do you not understand what I’m saying, solely because I have used “less” instead of “fewer”?
No?
Then why does it matter?
“But once we allow those little mistakes,” you say, “The language is going to slowly become a meaningless pile of nothing! It’ll be like speaking in text lingo all the time!”
I’m not sold on that.

I think we can insist upon good grammar when it helps us to communicate.
I just don’t think some of the old rules people still tout as being “good grammar” are meaningful.

So grammar rules do matter—without them, we can’t communicate.

But some grammar rules are relatively useless, and we’d be better off not enforcing them.


Them course of does.
Necessary speaker’s part on grammar are knowing who in order to word word-bit and put, them also the words also word-bits in also then with part listener when for way interpreting by.
According: speaking total musts to having way of knowing where is word and word-bit (also morpheme).
Calls “rules” we do; rules-grammar-less see yours gibberish like have that this.
[1]
Ever how, although, think I you about ask what-what our be in business’s linguistics’s would prescriptive rules grammar call: “Not end preposition with an sentence”, “Comma use Oxford” or, or what: that learn in school native anglophones rules and not the rules the us am babies without realize really learning we are them.
[2]
So as ask, do rules these anymore matter? Days’s These People all failing are follows to the prescriptive rules, why so bother did we even them with?
Two sides to this there are.
Side the first, one that that, these most of other answers getting at are, that is learned these do rules matter.
The logic silly is the bit, but it to-amounts that since they rules are can you learn only in school, write with rules those show that you to school have been, you education have been, and being, that education, you more are worth listening to some than crackpot random.

More further, that what you learn school is inevitable some variant Standard English’s.
Every English’s dialect little different the next from is – in some cases, different so from next that people-people speaks two wildly divergent forms English have’ll trouble, or outright are unable to can, understand one another.
[3] In handful cases, such as of Scots, accept speakers will their differences and their writing update to match the speaking.

For, though, most, they’ll attempt to differences bridging by learning a standard dialect language’s: Standard English, in our language’s case’s.
(Sure, there’s Standard American English, Standard British English, Standard Australian English, and so on, but they’re enough similar to haves few to no communication troubles.
) So benefit of learning Standard English’s grammar rules is two folded: you show that you’re educated, and you have an more easy time communicating with anglophones from an other world’s part.

But the other side is, as I’ve did cover a lot before, languages change.
They changes all the time, they change in myriad of ways, and they change whether or not we want them to.
Words change; sounds change; and so too do grammar rules, informally just as well as formally.
It used to be commonly place to hear people use “whom” casually, but it’s since fallen out of use; it’s taken formal language some time to catch up, but “whom” is steadily making its way out there, too.

This is where it gets interesting, and where the confusing bits start popping up.
Usually, formal and informal forms of a language are identical: in both formal and informal language, “The cat is over there” is fine; similarly, you wouldn’t say “Cat the over there is” in either formal or informal English.

However, that little crevice between a change taking place in informal language and that same change taking place in formal language, as in the “whom” example above – that’s where the grammar rules you learn in school come from.
That’s all the prescriptive grammar rules are: bleed, linguistic dissonance, between talking to your friends and talking on the news.

What you know of prescriptive grammar rules is not a permanent concept: it changes from year to year.
Singular “they” and figurative “literally” are steadily moving from informal to formal English; “whom” and its ilk are moving out.
Will English fall apart into a puddle of mush? Well, it’s been changing in the same sorts of ways for the past 50 000–150 000 years – since the dawn of language itself – and it seems to be doin’ pretty good so far.
(Not to mention that there have never been any recorded cases of languages falling apart into unintelligible mush, except for perhaps Danish.
)
Standard English is only a standard dialect that all speakers of all dialects of a language can learn to talk to one another, anyway.
It’s important, in that it allows you to communicate with people who don’t speak your dialect, and in that it shows you’re educated, but that’s about it: it’s not especially “more correct” than any other dialect.
It’s just a dialect, that’s all.

To answer your question, yes, grammar rules do matter, in that they help us communicate.
These rules change, and there’s not much you can do about that.
Learning the rules of the standard language is definitely useful, both for showing you know what you’re talking about and to talk with people you wouldn’t otherwise be able to talk to, but it’s not an objective standard to which all other dialects are held.

In fact, informally, the standard is usually inappropriate.
Language is a social tool, so how you speak matters just as much as what you say.
You’ve probably heard this Nelson Mandela quote:
If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head.
If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.

The same goes for dialects.
Speak to your friends or family in a standard dialect and, while they’ll understand you, it will seem wrong somehow – a little colder, not quite as friendly.
Speak to them with the dialect you’ve spoken to them as long as you’ve known them and, well, that goes to their heart.

¡Ask for thanking


To break the rules, you have to know them first.

The speakers of a language can break rules, if it conveys the same meaning, but they can’t break all of them, otherwise, it would be impossible to understand anything.
That’s what matters.
How well can others understand you.
Everything else is commentary.

I’m multilingual, and I mix languages all the time.
No grammar allows that, and yet, the meaning is, more often than not, very clear.
When Yoda says – “Do or do not.
There is no try”, I guarantee that every English speaker can understand him, and yet, the grammar is incorrect.
On the other hand, saying that weird Buffalo sentence does not really convey any meaning, despite being grammatically correct.
And “me and Apoorva went for dinner yesterday”, conveys perfect meaning, so go ahead, break those rules.

However, most rules are ingrained in the language so much, they cannot be broken without losing meaning.
You cannot say – “never life me hurt”.
It’s hard to convey meaning with that sentence.
It takes time and effort for a regular English speaker to understand it, and thus, your words aren’t doing their job.

I personally detest the grammatically correct subculture, who insist the language will become less understandable, when we have been understanding just fine with all the changes a language has undertaken since it’s advent.
But ignore them all, and you miss the point of language.


It’s arguable.

I’m inclined to write that grammar rules do matter – but, we have more liberty with the grammar.
I have a perfect example for this.

The horse raced past the barn fell.

Now, is this sentence grammatically correct?
Of course it is.

This is an example of a reduced relative clause – it lets us say clauses such as ‘the speech given this morning’ instead of ‘the speech that was given this morning’.

Here, the reduced relative clause is saying ‘the horse raced’ instead of ‘the horse that was raced’.

That means the sentence actually reads, “The horse, that was raced past the barn, fell.
” (It should be noted that I have only added the commas to distinguish the relative clause from the independent clause.
)
However, I did mention above about taking liberties.

Take this sentence for example:
This exceeding trifling witling, considering ranting criticising concerning adopting fitting wording being exhibiting transcending learning, was displaying, notwithstanding ridiculing, surpassing boasting swelling reasoning, respecting correcting erring writing, and touching detecting deceiving arguing during debating.

Again, like the previous sentence, this one is perfectly correct in regards to grammar – but, I would be inclined to state that this a bit of a piss-take of a sentence.
After all, it abuses the idea that the use of the ‘-ing’ participle can be in great excess.

What this sentence actually means:
This very superficial grammatist, supposing empty criticism about the adoption of proper phraseology to be a show of extraordinary erudition, was displaying, in spite of ridicule, a very boastful turgid argument concerning the correction of false syntax, and about the detection of false logic in debate.

So, in answer to the question, I believe that grammar rules still matter, but we are free to bend the rules to fit our own ideals.
However, don’t take too much liberty with grammar, for you could end up with some really weird sentences, like the above one.


Look, Grammar is supposed to matter where it should; no more, no less.

Usually, we have two forms of any language:
Native speakers of any language tend to “break” the solid form when it suits them for reasons ranging from short-cuts to ease of use to fun factor.

However, Foreign Speakers are not that fortunate here when it comes to taking the liberty of “playing” with the standard form of the Language.

Maybe, that's the beauty of Speaking it with that “lived with” sense… since we first learned to talk in that native language.

Your language is synonymous with your breath!
This is why I urge my advice seekers and Quora readers to get to know as much Solid form of English as you can actively manage… after that, how and when you break is a matter of mere joy for you because you now know the punishment and rewards equally.

One thing we must be definitely clear about: Grammar's only role is to help you speak and express yourself through that.
.
if that's somehow missing.
.
then something's seriously wrong with the way you are being “served” here.

Grammar is the tool for the material of words.
.
the better the tool, the nicer the outcome.

Hope it helps you get the whole idea!


Yes, grammar rules do still matter — in situations where people care about accuracy, clarity, appearances, professionalism, graciousness, education, truth, logic, consistency, beauty, etc.

I am a technical writer and editor, and people are willing to pay me for the privilege of making their work understandable, clear, and easy to read.
I edit the grammar when needed, and I also fix spelling, logic, and word flow.

Some of my recent projects have included a Holocaust survivor's memoir, a cookbook for a protein supplement, a patent application written by a Romanian friend's patent application he planned to submit from Switzerland to the U.
S.
Patent and Trademark Office, and a couple of doctoral dissertations (one on energy and the environment a Moldovan friend submitted to a university in Germany, and one on leadership that is being done for a university in Virginia).


Grammar rules are like recipes: if you aren't fully sure what you're doing, then you’re better off following them, but the experts are free to play around a bit more.

What I mean is, most of the ‘rules’ will make your writing more clear, and many of them will make it nicer to read.
However, if you are a good enough writer that you no longer have to worry about being misunderstood, and you know how to make reading pleasant, then a preposition is a fine thing to end a sentence with.

now if your missing commas capital letters or refusing to use correct; punctuation or misusing words to make yourself seem photosynthesis, or indeed sentences arranging in way a incorrect, you will significantly distract from readability.
(Note to mods: the previous sentence is poorly formatted to prove a point).
The use of grammatical and punctuation rules is to avoid making mistakes that will have a similar effect to this that might be more subtle, for example there's a big difference between loving your sons, Dick and Fanny; and loving your son’s dick and fanny.


I am the one who sits in the back row of the School of Hard Knocks, and sometimes gets hit in the head with the board eraser that the teacher throws in frustration…
I do not know how I write.
I know a verb is a “doing” word, and a noun is a “person, place or thing.
” I know I ran into trouble learning French in school because nouns are feminine or masculine, whereas in English “the” is sufficient.

So many rules! But I think I would have been more able to learn another language had I paid attention to grammar in school, but to me it seemed like equations, both mathematical and scientific… I could never make the darn things balance.

I just tend to write as it comes out of my head.
I imagine if the “Grammar Nazi” picked an answer of mine apart they would find a lot wrong.
A real lot.

I am just happy if I can get my point across, and if it seems to flow well.
I am happy if somebody finds a blooper and lets me know if I have something wrong.
I am grateful for built in spell check, but I ignore it for the British spellings that I use.

I hope I keep nice paragraphs.
I am kind of proud of my paragraphs.
Oh yes, I do remember one thing.
“Do not start every paragraph with “The”.
That was a blast from the past.

I see it this way.
Everybody here has their own personal style of writing, and if that’s that works for them, what’s not to love? Your own style of writing is who YOU are.
It’s how you present yourself here.

Be the YOU that you are!


I would argue that grammar rules in fact do not matter.

There are answers here that suggest if we didn't have grammar rules then our writing would absolutely lack coherence.
That is not the case.

In fact, language works well without grammar rules, but to understand this properly we need to remind ourselves what grammar rules are.

Grammar rules are generalizations about how we commonly use language.
They are an approximate description of how language is used.
In other words language is used and then we describe it: grammar rules are created.
I should also point out that English in particular is not a grammar-based language, hence why there are so many exceptions to the ‘rules’.

It is perfectly possible to speak and write well without learning grammar rules.
We can roughly liken it to playing a musical instrument without reading music.

I do, however, believe that learning grammar rules can be helpful if one wants to learn a new language, and it is fundamental if one wants to reach a specific competency with language such as being a proofreader.

Grammar rules are useful, but not necessary.


They do, like it or not.
It is like your pin code.
You forget it and you’re lost.
Completely lost.
Every language has examples of sentences where even a comma means life or death.
In Russian there is the sentence “to kill never mercy” and you have to put a comma to decide “to kill – never mercy” or “to kill never – mercy”.
I know it’s kind of bumpy in English but there are the same examples as well although no so critical.

An English professor wrote the words "A woman without her man is nothing" on the blackboard and asked his students to punctuate it correctly.

All of the males in the class wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing.
"
All the females in the class wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing.
"


Do grammar rules matter anymore?
order thing without grammar words structure clearly right the of word major any you youd rules any terms understand words broken to out important you rules is conjugation how determines make in issues extremely is I it that the to build and think in its suppose the perfectly of only The conjugation this put word Now of completely sentence can order are if right since were these sentences and as especially do is its see that the that you punctuation impossible grammatical are to sense
As you can clearly see, grammar is extremely important.
I bet you can’t even make out any message in that text and I’d be damn impressed if you could.
Grammar is exceptionally important in all languages, without rules there would be nothing to say how you should adress your message.
It’s basically a cook book of how you should say something.

So yes, grammar rules matter and will probably always matter.


It depends what you mean by grammar rules, and what you consider to be grammatically correct.
For example, take the following sentence:
Them sheeps is well nice, innit?
It’s not something I would say, but I would regard it as being a grammatically correct English sentence.

Why? Because it follows the subject-verb-object word order of English, a demonstrative, a noun, a copula verb, an intensifier and an adjective, and has a questioning tag at the end.

However, as it’s a register of English that is most likely to be used by people who are stuck in in a deprived area of London, it’s not one that I’d use in an interview for a job in, say, a law firm.

Some English rules are impositions from Latin, like the one that it’s incorrect to split an infinitive, or to end a sentence with a preposition, which in other Germanic languages is correct.

As regards ‘less’ and ‘fewer’, even that was originally an imposition from Norse on Anglo-Saxon, as other West Germanic languages do not make the distinction, whereas Scandinavian ones do.

That said, I do get tired of people talking about how ‘language is evolving’, which is all hippyish ‘let it go’ nonsense – yes, language evolves, but not the same way as animal or plant species do.

Given that animals can be cross-bred and plants can be genetically modified, meaning that change doesn’t all happen ‘naturally’, why should human language be seen as any different?
Just because things like the Great Vowel Shift happened to English in the past doesn’t mean that they need to happen in the future, now that we live in an era of electronic communication.

I rarely ever correct people’s grammar, but I’m not averse to having mine corrected, like when it was pointed out to me by someone that I was saying ‘the thing is, is…’ instead of ‘the thing is, that…’
Rather than be resentful, I thanked the person concerned, and looked up the term for this, which is the double copula, the copula verb in question being ‘to be’, hence it also being called the ‘double is’.

No one may like what is known as a ‘grammar scold’, but such people are no worse than any other kind of ‘scold’, or any more priggish.
As for the sentence quoted above, this is what I would use:
Those sheep are really nice, aren’t they?
Different registers of a language are like different types of clothing – they’re not good or bad in themselves, but they’re better in some situations than they are in others.
Innit?


Grammar rules never mattered.
But grammar itself matters because grammar is how we turn words into ideas.

Many grammar rules are snobbish shibboleths that have no purpose at all other than to demonstrate the education of the pompous pedants who insist on them.
But the good ones are there to facilitate clear, unambiguous communication – to make sure that when I read something you write, I understand the thought you were trying to express.

The main reason that is necessary is that language is always evolving, and with a language like English that is spoken by millions of people around the world, if it is left to evolve unchecked, it will quickly split into multiple variants.
Having generally accepted principles of grammar helps to prevent that from happening, by maintaining a hold on a common written English (which itself evolves, but is at least mutually comprehensible through multiple communities)


Right are it you possible is to understand this that.
To but, easier follows rely it's if can a on understand pattern you .
Other’s hard pattern, a to agree it’s of understand make to so of that ways say without of very we way on us sense certain all to speech.
Rules call “” these grammar we.









(You are right that it is possible to understand this.
But, it’s easier to understand if you can rely on it following a pattern.
Without a pattern, it’s very hard to understand others’ way of speech, so we agree on ways to say certain things that make sense to all of us.
We call these rules “grammar”)
That was just switching words around, I could’ve done much more if I wanted to, I probably fell into some predictable pattern at some point.
Grammar is the only way we can efficiently communicate, it’s very important.


?Me, be thinks grammer; rule no matter” no anymore,
Was the message of the above clear and concise?
Did it convey the message it intended to as best as possible?
Without grammar rules, language would be a mess.

There would confusion in even the most simple of sentences, and misinterpretation would be ubiquitous.

Here's an anecdote my English teacher showed me:
grammar saves lives


No.
Rules is important not.
You want speak speak you! Understand if not somebody, problem their it is!
Get all that? If it seemed awkward and a bit like gibberish, that’s because grammar matters.
Grammar is like the skeleton of a language; just as your body would sag and collapse if your bones were removed, language does not function without grammar.

Now, you may or may not have noticed that I am avoiding the word “rules”.
Is this deliberate? Yes it is, thanks for asking.

You see, I feel the word “rules” creates the wrong mindset about grammar.
Rather than “rules”, I prefer to refer to “principles” and the distinction is not just semantic.

Grammar does not consist of a bunch of arbitrary made-up rules that must be followed on pain of stern disapproval by grumpy old teachers with miserable sex lives, but rather of a series of meaningful principles that enable us to construct meaningful utterances.
In other words, grammar helps refine and express meaning.

The difference between someone with a good command of English and a poor command of English comes down to their ability to employ the subtle principles of grammar (and vocabulary of course) to convey precise nuances in meaning.

So, yes, grammar does matter-a lot.
Forget about “rules” and focus on meaning and function.
Making grammatical errors impairs communication, sometimes in minor, forgiveable ways and sometimes in ways that cause your utterances to collapse into gibberish or convey meanings you did not intend.


I have a Ph.
D.
in English and taught college writing courses for more than 30 years.
English grammar is based on word order.
I’ve never read a single student paper that violated the basic structure of a sentence in English: “Dog the at barked the man” would be bad grammar.

Very few mistakes fall into the category of “grammar.
” I would list pronoun case, subject-verb agreement, and misplaced modifiers as examples of bad grammar.

What I have seen – over and over and over! – are usage mistakes.
“Ain’t” is not bad grammar.
Sentences with “ain’t” can be diagrammed perfectly.
Spelling errors, misplaced apostrophes, and so on fall into the category of usage.
That’s where most problems lie.

I often hear slang and colloquial words mixed in with formal English – but again, that’s usage, not a grammar issue,


My observation is that misspelling and incorrect grammar may become SO widespread that if you try to correct it no one will understand you.
Change in customary usage may be happening so fast that proper English might soon become obscure and irrelevant.

Brings to mind Walter J.
Ong’s research on secondary orality.
I wonder what he would have had to say about all our online verbiage.


Rules in grammar is because necessary unless under these you just will no am able to sense make to which persons is say or written even though she might were possibly two dispensed by whatever single rule then still was understood.


Grammar rules matter for most people answering those questions.
And I agree they do matter to some degree, but, hey, I though language should be evolving.
These same people will say it, but then they will come here and tell us: “Hey, not so quick, Bucko!”
How some wish that these same zealots were just as devoted to the spelling rules.
I mean the regular spelling rules.
The silent “e” types! Apparently, that is not a problem! Twisted people and their twisted logic! Soon up will be down!
Improving English spelling


Most rules still matter a great deal; those rules determine how well you can communicate verbally and in writing.
These are important life skills.

Some rules no longer matter because a language is a living thing; over time it changes.

I was taught never to begin a sentence with “ And” or "But".
That rule is gone.

Also gone is the idea of never ending a sentence with a preposition.

No problem… Be happy…


Yes.
Although some rules are more important then others and some are optional and/ or debated.

Proper conjugation of verbs, fir example, is essential.

Using an Oxford comma, isn’t (although some will debate it is…)
The important grammar rules are the cornerstone of proper writing and speaking, i.
e.
convening ideas in a clear manner.

On the other hand there are a LOT of grammar rules that are obsolete or superfluous as well.


Do grammar rules matter anymore?
I just answered a similar question – so similar I'm wondering if the questions should be collapsed.
See John Ruchak's answer to Why are some people so obsessed with proper spellings/right use of words/proper grammar? Can't we just take it easy and try to feel/understand what the writer wants to convey overall?

Updated: 15.06.2019 — 6:29 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *