Is English grammar an exact science?

Answer 1

A quick English lesson:
1. "Your" is possessive. "You're" is a contraction of "You are". Why do otherwise intelligent people make statements like "Your running the wrong program"? It's not hard.
2. "There" refers to something like "over there". "Their" is possessive of them. "They're" is "they are".
3. Plurals DO NOT HAVE APOSTROPHES. Yes really: no "dog's", no "cat's", no "program's" and definitely no "carrot's"
4. Try punctuating occasionally. It makes your question easier to understand and means I'm more likely to try to answer it. I'm probably not the only one.

Answer 2

I know I'm jumping onto this question late, but I wondered do you mean American English or "The Queen's English"? I just wanted to point out that more and more these are two entirely different languages each with its own grammar.

American English grammar ceased to be an exact science about the time it was born. Because it is such a mix of languages and dialects you cannot put a hard and fast rule on it. I like to think of it as an art form.

As for "The Queen's English" I'm sure there is an exact science to it which is just about as outdated as the monarchy. No offense intended.

Answer 3

NO!
I teach English at a university in the UK, and I can tell you that most rules of grammar are outdated and meaningless. Most English grammars date from the 19th century, when grammaticians tried to apply the rules of Latin grammar (a very formalised language) to English. An example of this is the split infinitive. Many people will tell you that you should NOT split infinitive verbs. Now, in Latin this is the case since a infinitive verb is still only one word. So you can't split it. Not so in English. Saying, 'To boldly go...'(a split infinitive) makes just as much sense as 'to go boldly' or 'boldly to go'.
And there are plenty more example like that of how supposed 'rules' of grammar are nonsense.
Academically there has been a shift from grammars being prohibitive (telling you what you can or can't do - eg the 'split infinitive' rule), to grammars being descriptive (telling us how we actually USE language and derive meaning from it).
So, NO, grammar is NOT an exact science. Though the irony is that you'd probably need a good grasp of grammar to fully realise that.

Answer 4

Yes. Bill, I still believe correct English grammar is an exact science.

Answer 5

durulz is absolutely right. The "grammar rules" that you are probably thinking of are arbitrary. What's more, those who want you to follow rules can't even agree on what they want you to follow. Your best chance is to simply talk to your audience (boss, professor, whatever) and find out what they want you to do. People are way too savvy to let their language use to be locked into what one book says; we use language to our maximum advantage, which may or may not agree with what the books tell us to do. Nevertheless, language is highly structured and patterned, and there are many linguists out there (like me, for instance) who are working hard on figuring out how the structure and patterns work. My study of linguistics has given me more respect for just how quick and perceptive we all are, because we are able to respond to each other's utterances with incredible regularity and precision and predict what is going to happen in a conversation before it happens. And _every_ normal human being does this! It's really quite remarkable.

Answer 6

For the vast majority of people I'd say... nope. No offence to all those that still keep the faith regarding proper english but the public seems to care less and less about maintaining it every day. Slang of all kinds continue to creep into our once sacred formal English lexicon.

Answer 7

Is Silk made of Nylon or Nylons made of Silk? Is Silk and Nylons same altogether? Get it?

Answer 8

Would that it were.

Answer 9

i donot think so........may it is .......