The true “rules” (if that term may be used) of grammar are nothing codified, nothing written down. They are the product of neural structures in our brains that allow us to understand words in relation to each other instead of in isolation. In a word: syntax. It’s entirely natural, intuitive, and normally we aren’t even aware of it working, until attention is called to it.
Exactly. I wouldn’t call them rules, I’d call them mechanisms or systems or something like that.
I know - I just wanted to be a pedant.
Eh. You loath, I loathe.
My choice.
Not everybody gets to hang around all day waiting for someone to make a grammatical error for them to jump on.
Hey, you had your chance!
And I exercised great (for me) restraint.
(But really I was just making a tortuous play on the similarity between “pedant” and “pendant.”)
Ooh, that went right over my head.
It’s not a real world.
But neither are kinda or gonna or dunno and I use them all the time. So I’m not gonna judge.
It’s my real world
Fix it quick. But know I saw it.
I ain’t gonna!
It’s already in the dictionary.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alot
Note that English has a long history of combining “two words” into “one word”. I put quotes there because the difference is more orthography than usage. For example, “awhile”, “alone”, “today”, “instead” and many more were all two word phrases that became one word.
iswydt.
Well, now youse guys have gone and dunnit! I was trying to be a good dog even though I had something to say to the comment below, but I was loath (or, possibly, loathe, or both) to digress this thread alot more than it’s already been done digressed. And I didn’t feel the need to start a whole 'nuther thread, especially since I think most folks here don’t share my views on some aspects of linguistics. But, as I say, youse guys have gone and dunnit, so imma gonna speak my mind.
You’re welcome to be a descriptivist, and in some sense all of us including me, excepting only the most extreme pedants, are descriptivists. But I want to make a few comments on this, not particularly to disagree with your general sentiment which I can appreciate, and certainly not to pick on you, but at least to say that I’m much less impressed by this phenomenon than you and many others seem to be. It seems to have become fashionably trendy to study and defend how kids talk to each other on social media, and indeed books have been written about it as if it was some profound linguistic revolution rather than ten-year-olds texting each other. The fact that these analyses of something so insubstantial have been well received reminds me a little of the fawning adoration by trend-obsessed media of the stereotyped bad novel that was parodied in the movie American Fiction.
But juvenile slang is nothing new, and it’s often spurious and short-lived. The reason for this is that it’s often used to distinguish the identity of an in-group and/or to show how “cool” the speaker is (“cool” is one of those terms that did manage to stick around). Once it becomes widespread, or God forbid if parents, or worse, boomers, start using it, the cool in-groups will avoid it like the plague.
Is anything “rad” any more? Is anything still “groovy”? Does “tubular” still refer to something exceptional? How about “righteous” for a tasty burger? Is a profound life observation “heavy”? Does "bad’ still mean “good” and is “wicked” something even better? Are “sup?” and “yo” still proper greetings? And then there’s “yeet” and “L33T”, the latter for some reason spelled with the numeral “3” instead of “E”. “Bitchin’” may or may not still be around. Does anyone still get “psyched” or “amped” any more? Is “YOLO” still a thing? We currently still have “Karen”, but before that there was the short-lived “Becky”.
Examples of dead slang abound, depending on how far back you want to go and your particular demographic. They come and go like a rainshower on a summer afternoon. Most of it is of unknown origin, while other examples can be traced to trendy media like movies (“Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”) or TV series (“Seinfeld” eventually became rather annoyingly self-important about its ability to create memes).
One strong counterexample of terms that have real endurance are those that were crafted by scientists and engineers to express important new concepts. Thus we have bioengineering, artificial intelligence, artificial general intelligence, fuel cell, transistor, CPU, GPU, ECU, solid state electronics, integrated circuits, the personal computer, local area networks, and even the internet itself which was still commonly called the ARPAnet at least until the mid- to late-80s.
Each of these terms has a systematic origin rooted in sound principles of semantics and etymology. Whereas (at least in my view) studying how kids write on social media is at the same level as studying the babblings of an infant just learning to speak – which is to say, it may be of some academic interest, but it’s hard to see how it does anything to enrich the language in the same way as skilled creative writers and developers of new technologies defining new terms.
What are all these dictionaries and usage guides in the world’s libraries all about? They may not codify civil or criminal penalties for violating standards, but they certainly define the basic standards of our lexicon and sentence structures that facilitate human communication.
I think you mean, “Ima speak my mind”. Do try to keep up!
So there are rules after all! 
Sorry, that would be, “I ain’t a’gonna!”
Language does have rules, the exact same way that Calvinball has rules.
Unfortunately I lack your sophistication. 
Whatcha talkin’ bout?
“Short lived “Becky”?”
(dang, punctuation is hard in hick-speak)