English syntax follows the Latin to a limited extent; but its leading characteristic is, that English syntax is founded upon the meaning and the logical connection of words rather than upon their form: consequently it is quite as necessary to place words properly, and to think clearly of the meaning of words, as to study inflected forms.
For example, the sentence, "The savage here the settler slew," is ambiguous. Savage may be the subject, following the regular order of subject; or settler may be the subject, the order being inverted. In Latin, distinct forms would be used, and it would not matter which one stood first.
Why study syntax?
391. There is, then, a double reason for not omitting syntax as a department of grammar,—
First, To study the rules regarding the use of inflected forms, some of which conform to classical grammar, while some are idiomatic (peculiar to our own language).
Second, To find out the logical methods which control us in the arrangement of words; and particularly when the grammatical and the logical conception of a sentence do not agree, or when they exist side by side in good usage.
As an illustration of the last remark, take the sentence, "Besides these famous books of Scott's and Johnson's, there is a copious 'Life' by Sheridan." In this there is a possessive form, and added to it the preposition of, also expressing a possessive relation. This is not logical; it is not consistent with the general rules of grammar: but none the less it is good English.
Also in the sentence, "None remained but he," grammatical rules would require him instead of he after the preposition; yet the expression is sustained by good authority.
Some rules not rigid.
392. In some cases, authorities—that is, standard writers—differ as to which of two constructions should be used, or the same writer will use both indifferently. Instances will be found in treating of the pronoun or noun with a gerund, pronoun and antecedent, sometimes verb and subject, etc.