I want to explore the doctreine that syntex should be entirely driven by semantics. In other words, let's build a "syntax" -- set of principles that describe sentence structure (or something like sentences -- the sequerncing or words and terms and ymbols) by the meaning (semantics) that we are intending.

Syntax serves semantics -- guiding doctrine

Mke it simple

get rid of as many facets of grammer and sytax as possible --

and see how far we get

follow the logic of "making a point"

"I want to go downtown and buy some corn"

"The cat is on the mat"

Get a bunch of samples -- and then start by refiing "the point" of each of these statements

the cat is on the mat -- that IS the point --

the (what: cat) is (what: on) the mat (what)

what is the cat?

what is the mat?

what is on?

see if syntax can be entirely reduced to a geometric/topological process of "making a point"

Wikipedia on syntax emphasizes the point of sequencing

that seems right

Sun, Apr 18, 2021

In linguistics, syntax (/?s?ntæks/)[1][2] is the set of rules, principles, and processes that govern the structure of sentences (sentence structure) in a given language, usually including word order. The term syntax is also used to refer to the study of such principles and processes.[3] The goal of many syntacticians is to discover the syntactic rules common to all languages.

Etymology

The word syntax comes from Ancient Greek: ???????? "coordination", which consists of ??? syn, "together", and ????? táxis, "an ordering".

Sequencing of subject, verb, and object

One basic description of a language's syntax is the sequence in which the subject (S), verb (V), and object (O) usually appear in sentences.

Over 85% of languages usually place the subject first, either in the sequence SVO or the sequence SOV. The other possible sequences are VSO, VOS, OVS, and OSV, the last three of which are rare. In most generative theories of syntax, these surface differences arise from a more complex clausal phrase structure, and each order may be compatible with multiple derivations.

Theories of syntax

See also: Theory of language

There are a number of theoretical approaches to the discipline of syntax. One school of thought, founded in the works of Derek Bickerton,[7] sees syntax as a branch of biology, since it conceives of syntax as the study of linguistic knowledge as embodied in the human mind. Other linguists (e.g., Gerald Gazdar) take a more Platonistic view, since they regard syntax to be the study of an abstract formal system.[8] Yet others (e.g., Joseph Greenberg) consider syntax a taxonomical device to reach broad generalizations across languages.

Syntacticians have attempted to explain the causes of word-order variation within individual languages and cross-linguistically. Much of such work has been done within frameworks of generative grammar which assumes that the core of syntax depends on a genetic structure which is common to all mankind. Typological research of the languages of the world has however found few absolute universals, leading some to conclude that none of syntax has to be directly genetic.

Alternative explanations have been sought in language processing. It is suggested that the brain finds it easier to parse syntactic patterns which are either right or left branching, but not mixed. The most widely held approach is the performance–grammar correspondence hypothesis by John A. Hawkins who suggests that language is a non-innate adaptation to innate cognitive mechanisms. Cross-linguistic tendencies are considered as being based on language users' preference for grammars that are organized efficiently, and on their avoidance of word orderings which cause processing difficulty. Some languages however exhibit regular inefficient patterning. These include the VO languages Chinese, with the adpositional phrase before the verb, and Finnish which has postpositions; but there are few other profoundly exceptional languages.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax