For these reasons, if linguists countenance countable languages at all, they usually think in terms of idiolects.
At best, the formalist can achieve no more than a reduction in commitment from the transfinite realms of some mathematical theories, such as set theory, to the countably infinite, but still presumably abstract, realm of arithmetic, wherein the syntax and proof theory of standard countable languages such as those of standard set theory, can, as Gödel showed, be modelled.
For expository convenience, the remainder of this entry will limit itself to the case of countable languages so, from here on out "language"="countable language".
It is plain that not all infinite conjunctions can be expressed because there are uncountably many (non-equivalent) infinite conjunctions over a countable language.
In real analysis, for example, there are too many objects in the domain to have a name in a countable language.
As for set theory, the failure of categoricity was already taken note of by Skolem in 1923, because it follows from the Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem (which Skolem arrived at that year; see Skolem 1923, based on Löwenheim 1915 and Skolem 1920): any first order theory in a countable language that has a model has a countable model.
"I picked up the language so fast".
NSFW language, so wear earbuds.
But what makes that language so intentional?
Body language is a universal language so use it well.
It is a singular countable noun, so we need to use 'a' before it.
