Def. 1, noun: A flow dynamic characterized by intense spirals, eddies, and turbulence.
Def. 2, verb: To agitate or chaotically mix a contained fluid, as a means to stir.
Def. 1, noun: An aggregate, often complicated or with multiple parts.
Def. 2,: adj., Difficult to understand.
Def. 3, verb: To combine, amalgamate, or bring together multiple entities, especially when the new structure has new properties.
It is hardly a quirk of language that some words are used as multiple parts of speech. Actually, I think that this linguistic fluidity speaks directly to the core cognitive processes that underlie our use of language. Perhaps syntax-level fluidity in speech ("word-part play") reflects a deeper and more fundamental sort of creativity than the mere rearragement of socially-acceptable word-modules. In the above Figure, two polysemous words ("Vortex" and "Complex") are juxtaposed to explore this idea. In the space between the two words, there is an emergent combination.....Vorplex.....
The task of the semantic innovator is coercive, fitting words together into a long linear jig-saw puzzle called "this sentence". The semantic innovator is like a parent trying to corral a group of unruly children into a very well-structured minivan. Whereas the syntactic innovator, at the risk of incomprehensibility, delves into the subconscious basement of language, emerging from the dark with glittering new speech forms and word-relations. The task of the syntactic innovator is similar to the work of a basic scientist - their work is obvious to the point of being esoteric, so crucial that lay people hardly understand its relevance. Why is the Government not funding theoretical adverb research like they used to? Won't someone speak up for hyphenated-adjectives and the civil rights of conjunctions and grammatical strange loops and run-on sentences?!?
Over longer timescales, this syntax-semantics bifurcation is a perfect example of "plus ça change, the more they stay the same". Imperceptible syntactic "mutations" within a language accumulate, and eventually produce new languages that can be partially translated into one another or even admixed together (as in the previous sentence). This is contrasted by semantic "mutations", which can apparently coexist perfectly as long as the basic structure of their language remains common and unchanged. If you believe such a thing as "meaning" exists, then maybe we only divine the "content" of a text when we understand it from multiple perspectives, or in multiple languages (though do see Boris Buden for a dissenting opinion).
Using new combination of words to convey semantic content is like changing the picture on your desktop background to reflect your current state. Using new syntactic forms is like modifying your operating system to both reflect your current state, as well as allow new classes of future modifications. In closing, if you find yourself needing to express some idea soon, you might want to:
Think outside of the. sentence
See on flickr @ https://www.flickr.com/photos/daniel_friedman/37000701326/in/dateposted/