@Shapeless,
Quote:I haven't decided how much I agree with what I just said. Just thinkin' aloud, is all.
That's clearly what thinking people do, Shapeless.
Quote:Interesting. This is mostly a thought experiment, but I wonder: does Pinker's argument undo itself? Pinker claims that there is some flexibility when it comes to the grammatical number of a conjunction, and that there should therefore be some flexibility when it comes to the grammatical case of a conjunction. But that claim assumes that the conventions governing grammatical number should be consistent with the conventions governing grammatical case. What is the basis of that claim?
Pinker's argument about the grammatical number of a conjunction demonstrates that grammatical conventions are not obliged to be consistent. So why does he want the flexibility of one area to be applicable to the flexibility of another?
I don't see that it must "assume(s) that the conventions governing grammatical number should be consistent with the conventions governing grammatical case".
We use grammatical structure to effect meaning; I believe that it stands to reason that there must be flexibility within structure to say all the things/cover all the potentials that life throws at us.
The conventions of language [real conventions, not prescriptivist conventions] range quite dramatically. Take the modal verbs for example. All, with the exception of deontic [social meaning] 'must' are used in conjunction with "have+ PP" to express past situations. Deontic 'must' isn't, can't be and not for any grammatical reason, but purely for semantic reasons.
Deontic meaning- prohibitive: You must not walk on the grass.
Later:
Epistemic ['epistemic' means "level of certainty" meaning]: You must not have walked on the grass. [okay]
Deontic: You must not have walked on the grass. [???]
Also, we sometimes use the past tense of verbs to create more polite/deferential situations;
Did you want something to eat?
I was wondering if you could ... ?
A rigid grammar, demanding that we follow "logical" conventions, would leave us unable to express certain nuances in language.
Quote:To say that there can't be any freedom in the grammatical case of a conjunction is an arbitrary decree, to be sure; but what aspect of grammar isn't?
I don't think that grammar is arbitrary, Shapeless. It's extremely complicated to be sure; but the fact that we are able to follow one another so seamlessly and effortlessly wrt to grammatical structure points to it being highly logical, highly ordered.