I'm really not sure of the points you're making, unless they are "expressing difficult concepts in words placed in orders that aren't within the reach of intelligible English is contrary to communication". (For all I can tell, that is your point.)
When I say that syntax is an observable phenomenon, I'm not saying that the observation that "Most English sentences are in the form subject-verb-predicate completion" is not a description of English. I'm saying that the fact that most English sentences are in that form is an observable phenomenon of English sentences. Syntax is the observable patterns of a language; the descriptions of syntax are descriptions separable from the language, but the syntax itself is part of the language.
"Syntax is the observable patterns of a language."
I think this is near to my point. It exists as a way of describing, not so much an inherent property of the language. Syntax (I think) emerges from many utterances as something that can be observed and talked about.
Ummm. Let me be a bit more specific.
That language has syntax is inherent to the ways humans do language. The specific syntax of a language, however, is not inherent either to the way humans do language, or to the specific language -- it varies a great deal and changes over time without the identity of the language being particularly affected.
When I lived in Pennsylvania, thirty years and change ago, I knew some old Pennsylvania Dutch folk who still spoke in the "verb at the end" Plain Speech syntax (including the "thee-and-thou" semantic aspect of it), there was no doubt in my mind or theirs that we were both speaking "the same" language though our syntax was radically different. I with verbs in the middle spoke, they with verbs at the end spoke, but the same language it was. (And not a bit like Yoda did they sound.)
I think we have reached the point of heatedly agreeing with each other. Everything you said is something I already believed to be true. I think the only quibble I have with what you said here is "That language has syntax is inherent to the ways humans do language"; I believe that's definitional. There are many forms of communication, but the ones we call "language" are distinguished from other forms by having syntax.
Oops, I meant to comment on the last paragraph separately.
I have no doubt that you and the Pennsylvania Dutch were both speaking versions of English. But it's possible that you weren't speaking the same language. If English were less flexible about word order, just that one syntactic change might have been enough to render you mutually unintelligible.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-29 07:18 pm (UTC)When I say that syntax is an observable phenomenon, I'm not saying that the observation that "Most English sentences are in the form subject-verb-predicate completion" is not a description of English. I'm saying that the fact that most English sentences are in that form is an observable phenomenon of English sentences. Syntax is the observable patterns of a language; the descriptions of syntax are descriptions separable from the language, but the syntax itself is part of the language.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-29 11:53 pm (UTC)I think this is near to my point. It exists as a way of describing, not so much an inherent property of the language. Syntax (I think) emerges from many utterances as something that can be observed and talked about.
Ummm. Let me be a bit more specific.
That language has syntax is inherent to the ways humans do language. The specific syntax of a language, however, is not inherent either to the way humans do language, or to the specific language -- it varies a great deal and changes over time without the identity of the language being particularly affected.
When I lived in Pennsylvania, thirty years and change ago, I knew some old Pennsylvania Dutch folk who still spoke in the "verb at the end" Plain Speech syntax (including the "thee-and-thou" semantic aspect of it), there was no doubt in my mind or theirs that we were both speaking "the same" language though our syntax was radically different. I with verbs in the middle spoke, they with verbs at the end spoke, but the same language it was. (And not a bit like Yoda did they sound.)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-30 12:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-30 12:17 am (UTC)I have no doubt that you and the Pennsylvania Dutch were both speaking versions of English. But it's possible that you weren't speaking the same language. If English were less flexible about word order, just that one syntactic change might have been enough to render you mutually unintelligible.