 The next topic is Sapir Vov Hypothesis with regard to the limitations and the possibilities that are there. The Sapir Vov Hypothesis concludes that our language determines how we experience the world we are living in and how we experience that experience as a whole. The language a person speaks affects his thoughts and perspectives on the world. Now, researchers that have been conducted so far could not provide a solid evidence whether to accept or refute this hypothesis. The researchers generally they do not have the solid or you can say the experimental data, enough data to refute or to accept the complete hypothesis. So general acceptance is that there is some truth that lies between the two. For example, no research says that language does not determine thought or otherwise such as that the thought has nothing to do with the language. So we cannot discredit one or accept one as we do not have till now the concrete and sound data which can enable us to accept one hypothesis and reject the other. But there is a general consensus that there is some truth that lies between both these versions. So the limitations are the lack of data, the experimental data and also the possibilities that yes if you agree that language does affect thought, then it can provide lot of opportunities for the linguists to look at the mental processes or cognitive processes and also kind of look at the cultural and social factor that are there. So the possibilities are there and limitations are also there. So now we will look at certain limitations as well as certain possibilities that the hypothesis offer. Raj Khatri in 2007 in one of his writings discussed Sapir Vof hypothesis in detail and especially the limitations and possibilities. According to him some sources indicate that the recent work in linguistics and cognitive science has supported the Sapir Vof hypothesis. Language in mind is an important aspect which is related to this hypothesis and this advances in the study of language and thought. Basically it's a collection of papers that gives three ideas on language and thought concepts. One is language as a lens, B is language as a toolkit and C is language as a category maker. Now language as a lens means the language we acquire influence how we see the world. Language as a toolkit means the language we acquire augments our capacity for higher order representation and reasoning. And C which is language as a category means the language we acquire influence where we make our category distinction. So the last point refers to basically the influences of the language that is being acquired that acquisition influences where we make our category distinction. Some studies conclude that the idea put forth by Daniel Chandler, George Grace, Lawrence, Chambl indicate the Sapir Vof hypothesis being significant but not being applicable to all situations. So the importance has been highlighted but its application is something which is questionable. A linguistic mystic, these are the notes from a linguistic mystics, explain why Sapir Vof is not conclusively proved and disproved. The mystic writes everybody views the world differently and uses their language accordingly. The language of the one from a teaching career is different from the language of the other who is from maybe some other domain or maybe photographic printing business. Similarly there might be individual cognitive and linguistic behavior with every person. The result is that there is no neutral sample of a given language. Culture is another important factor to be considered. People's views of the world might depend upon their cultural norms, beliefs and perceptions. Similarly people from the same given native language or dialect might share the same cultural background. So it is difficult to find out whether the given effect or consequences has resulted from linguistic or cultural perspectives or the perspectives from both. Such things might get the researcher into which came first, the example such as the chicken or the egg kind of debate. Another important point would be the issue of experiment itself. When one tries to study how people use language without biasing them, he uses language to explain the study and conduct the experiment. Then he might need a translator to pass on instructions which may bias the participants right. If there is some degree of linguistic relativity, it will likely be universal and thus the researcher will be influenced by it. In such a case, looking at the nature of these effects or consequences, a researcher who is studying this effect or consequences in another person might be like inmate studying the behavior of a fellow inmate. So these are the comments which have been written by Raj Khatri in one of his writings specially dealing with the Sapir-Vov hypothesis. Sapir and Vov state that language and thought are too closely related terms. Generally now the researchers come to the conclusion that Sapir-Vov hypothesis has some truth. Yet the extent of truth in the hypothesis is unsolved or yet to be solved.