Here I disagree again. The language designer defines the syntax and the semantics that goes along with it. For example, in some languages, a[25] is an array access, while in others, it's a method call. It could just as well have been a multiplication, or an assignment, or return the 26th character in a string; and if you had been trained in a language that treats that syntax as an assignment, you'd think 'a = 25' is pretty strange.
But this goes in favor of my point. You're assuming that language syntax and semantics are statically designed at standards conferences and thereafter, instructors are authoritative preachers of the gospel according to ANSI, etc.
The truth is most languages are designed by an engineer who is frustrated with the restrictions to semantics and design that a given grammar imposes. He then designs something that works for him, probably kludges together an interpreter and uses it till someone else likes it and tweaks it to their needs etc.
Standards are imposed after the fact and then, compiler groups like gnu, Apple, and Microsoft proceed to inor the standard and provide nonstandard atoms, and extensions to the syntax that suit the complaints from their customer base. ECMA standardizing Java extensions, in turn giving rise to .Net/pnet/mono, is a good example.
It's a two-way discussion and always in flux. So it's circular, semantics afflict syntax and syntax creates semantics. It's not that semantics are irrelevant, it's just that they are inextricably linked in symbiosis with the given grammar. This is true in human language. Changing the dictionary, can adversely affect critical reasoning in a population. The Chinese cultural revolution and Merian Wester's are good examples.
How many people remember that envy is the sin and jealousy is a trait of God that he's proud of? And that's just an intentional merging of commonly used object lables. Imagine insisting that we start putting participles at the end of the complete clause in every English sentence. It would sure make me laugh. But it would subtly change the way people think and conceptualize problems.
You really want to avoid being "trained in a language" in favor of learning the principles in a non language specific manner. That will make you much more flexible and able to cope with changes. There are still sizable companies out there using CICS for data entry and management. ROFL