Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject

Gary Shannon, On 27/12/2005 23:52:
> I think I've finally figured out why grammar is so
> complex. It's because it's an artificial attempt to
> discover "rules" in what is really a monsterous
> collection of exceptions. There ARE no rules; only
> exceptions! Tens of thousands of unique patterns of
> words learned by rote which, in reality, have no
> underlying theoretical reason for existing other than
> generations of acquired habits passed down with a bit
> of alteration and streamlining from one generation to
> the next.
>
> Beneath it all, there is no such thing as "grammar",
> and that's why it appears to be so complex; because in
> the end it is nothing but the enumeration of
> exceptional cases that we learned by example from
> childhood on. The existence of some solid and
> universal principal beneath it all is just a mirage,
> an illusion, and epiphenomenon.
In linguistics this view is increasingly widely held.
I'd call it 'constructionism', and it is the main idea
underpinning the growing theory of Construction Grammar.

[I don't myself entirely agree with the view you put
forward, but then nor do you, as your follow-up messages
show...]

> Therefore conlangs should not be "designed", they
> should be "used into existence." Their "grammar"
> should never be discussed, but only demonstrated with
> a catalog of exemplars (exceptions, all). Their
> phonology should never be analyzed, but only produced
> in real time, as needed, with assorted mouth noises.
> Their lexicon must never be planned, but only
> documented AFTER the fact. They should be taught by
> example only, not by enumeration of so-called "rules"
> which don't really exist anyway.
For me, the chief attraction of conlangs (-- & I favour
the engelangy sort) is precisely that they can be
designed -- that Nature can be improved upon...

--And.