Final answer:
The rules of syntax can be separated from meaning, as evidenced by our ability to recognize grammatically correct sentences and construct plausible but meaningless words based on phonetic rules, indicating an intuitive understanding of grammatical structures independent of semantics.
Step-by-step explanation:
Evidence for Separation of Syntax and Meaning
The concept that the rules of syntax can be distinct from the meaning of a string of words is evident in our ability to recognize grammatical sentences without necessarily understanding their meaning. This can be illustrated through the arrangement of words in various sequences to form a sentence.
For instance, the words 'that,' 'how,' 'happen,' did' can be constructed into the sentence 'How did that happen?' without the need for additional punctuation. Our intuitive knowledge of grammar allows us to identify this syntactically correct sentence from the 24 possible combinations.
Moreover, the creation of non-existing but phonetically plausible words like 'flort' or 'squeet' showcases our understanding of plausible word structures in English, separate from their meaning. This underscores that syntactical rules can be applied even when the meaning is not immediately clear or is entirely absent.
Additionally, understanding semantics is not always necessary to comprehend the syntactic structure. For example, sentences like 'money is the root of all evil' versus 'the root of all evil is money' demonstrate how word order (syntax) can alter emphasis but both sentences have valid syntax.
In conclusion, these examples highlight our innate understanding of syntactical rules and suggest that syntax can be independent of semantics. Thus, syntax does not rely on words having meaning but rather on the arrangement of those words according to grammatical rules.