Translators add quotes where none is in the original text. They use the grammar of the original language. For example, the Greek of the New Testament did not use quotes yet in most modern languages, it shows quotes.
How? Why?
It could be arbitrary of course. But if you see a quote that says:
“It has been said people are similar to machines”, a better way to construct it is: “It has been said ‘people are similar to machines'”.
Why the ‘uplift’ into another dimension orthogonal or parallel to the sentence using quotes?
The writer is saying “These are not my original words”.
It donates a distinct origin with a distinct history of its own for the words in the quote. Or it imparts another additional variable to the meaning of the words in the quotes, a meaning not present in the main sentence.
For that, it is not “on the same level”.
It cannot be reconciled in a simple flat fashion.
But, I don’t think most language can be. It only seems linear out of our custom of presentation. But language is multidimensional, layered, self-intersecting and complex.
=====
(there is) [nothing] <preventing> [us] {from} <creating> [[novel] constructs].
=====
I made it up for you right now. I’ll probably not use it again. I split up parts of speech and/or tense by brackets.
=====
As a boy, one aspect of algebra I hated ,and still do, is elimination of variables.
My “math thinking” was influenced by having a little computer that I programmed in BASIC. You never lose a variable in BASIC. It’s always global.
But in algebra? ELIMINATE.THE.VARIABLES
It was horrible to my young mind. How could you eliminate them? What if you need them later?
I always kept track of them. They didn’t like that.
======