The problem is that you're equivocating on the meaning of the word grammar. There may be formal labels in linguistics for the two meanings of the word, but I'm going to use "implicit grammar" and "explicit grammar." All languages have "implicit grammar," meaning, roughly, patterns and structure used to convert sounds into a language that permits communication between humans. That grammar exists independent of whether the language users even have a concept of grammar. The patterns and structures can evolve as language changes over time.ajax18 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 5:39 pmIf this is true then how is saying that English grammar comes from Latin an accurate statement? The grammar was there before Anglo Saxons learned how to speak Latin.Hasn’t it been pretty well accepted since Chomsky that grammar is essentially hard wired into humans? Are there any languages that don’t have some type of grammar? Is it even possible to have a language that has no grammar?
The implicit grammar of a language can be studied and codified into a set of rules, which is explicit grammar. Both implicit and explicit grammar are referred to as "grammar." Explicit grammar can tell us how a given language works. It can also be used as a set of rules for how the language should work.
As the wiki article explains, the first explicit English grammar was based on Latin Grammar. I'm guessing you can't find an explicit grammar for Old English because the speakers of that language hadn't recognized grammar as a concept. So, assuming your teacher was teaching you grammar and not Chomsky, he or she was correct to say that English (explicit) grammar comes from Latin. That fact explains why English (explicit) grammar has a bunch of arbitrary rules.
So, no, your teacher's statement wasn't part of some societal plot to hide the superiority of your Aryan ancestors. It was an accurate statement about English (explicit) grammar that explains why parts of it are so arbitrary.