 See, throughout we have been talking about natural language. When we wind it up, let me put it in perspective in the following sense. What is natural language? The language that people speak. The object of inquiry for study in linguistics has always and only been language that people speak, which is natural language. Studying such a phenomena, when we started looking at underlying structure of language, that is, not individual languages, but language, then people found lot of facts, lot of things, which were very exciting, very interesting and again with such things, when people started looking at formalization of that stuff at a completely abstract level, that is the phenomena which people started calling linguistic theory. And then in the theoretical domain of linguistics, around the theoretical studies, then emerged some of the, I mean there has always been a discussion around what could be theoretical, what is not theoretical, what is it that we should focus on more and what is not, what are the things that were left out. Anyway, the point that I am trying to make is in the debates concerning linguistic theory, the distinction between e-language and i-language were always a very crucial distinction. Abstraction from natural, from the data from natural language was possible only with i-language. We have looked at the distinction between e-language and i-language at length and I think by now, the moment when we say i-language and e-language, we understand what we are talking about. We do not need to get into the definitions of e-language and i-language at this stage. So, e-language, sorry, i-language, linguistic competence, linguistic theory, all these things became synonymous terms. People started using them interchangeably. Native speakers intuition, capacity, biological foundation, the facts around, not facts, the foundations for a biological basis of language, all these things were in a way connected discussions and then there is a whole range of discussions which can be covered under e-language. So, this distinction was very clear and for a long time, people talking about i-language will not discuss things that concern e-language and definitely, people talking about e-language would many a times believe that discussions in the field of i-language are not really that interesting for us. You see the distinction and the sort of it emerged in a form of rivalry which is not actually the case. It is a very interesting distinction that there is certain things which can only be discussed at the level of abstraction which are common, which have really a foundation for the study of the whole phenomena of language and then there are certain things which are external factors in language which are called e-language phenomena. So, there has been a very few attempts to put the two things together and see how it looks. That is the point I am trying to make. There has been distinction, people have been working in two areas individually, but there has been very few attempts to see the things, see such things together. The important question is the things that are in the domain of e-language are not the part of theoretical linguistics. Can they be studied within the domains of theoretical linguistics and if not, then how do we accommodate them? How do we study them? To deal with such a thing, I do not want to go into too much of details of that discussion. To deal with such a thing, when we were discussing here linguistic theory and the study of the form of language, at this stage and then we also discussed e-language, but we did not discuss enough about the function of language in society. That is how language functions when it intersects with society. See, language in a real world is a social phenomena as well. When the moment we speak it, it becomes e-language and when we speak, we speak in society, we interact with people and then there are lots of things which are good, not good, which are only related to i-language are not relevant for the shapes and forms of e-language and the way they get, the way we look at it in the society. So, language in a real world is definitely a different phenomena and how it governs itself and how it functions in society, how it works vis-a-vis other languages, we have not looked at such things in details. However, what I, the goal for me for today is to look at the, when we look at the form of language, we find several things that are difficult for linguistic theory to explain. In other words, we find several things which are sense, which could be sensitive to cultural elements in language. How do we accommodate them and how do we study them? If we do not find answers in linguistic theory about them, that is an important question. So, I wanted to show you some such stuff in natural language and I have examples from Hindi to show you. However, again like I always say, you can find such things in all languages, at least the languages that you speak. Then it becomes more interesting that if such things are available in all languages, then they definitely be part of linguistic theory and linguistic theory must be adequate enough to explain such things. Why is it that we are unable to explain it? Or the moment someone raises these kinds of questions, these kinds of questions are brushed aside under the domains of e-languages, the phenomena of e-languages and therefore, may not have direct relevance to i-language and therefore, not an adequate or appropriate explanation. So, let us see what those forms are, what those things are and decide for ourselves whether they are making sense or not, whether such things require explanations or not and then we will see its significance for linguistic theory. See, like I told you in the beginning, we have seen about language learning. You have looked at language learning in great details. The terms like language acquisition, device, universal grammar should now be part of general terminology for you. So, and on the basis of such a discussion, we concluded that this phrase that learning a language is child's play really suits when we talk about language learning. That it is such a natural phenomena for any child to pick up a language from the society that we do not pay much attention to, but when we look into this phenomena at our length, then we see several interesting issues around that. And one of the ways that we can put it is we are not born knowing English, French or Thai or Tamil or Telugu. Rather, we are born with innate knowledge of certain universal structures. And then when they get interpreted, when they interact with real examples from the real world, we say or we feel that we have picked up a language. We have discussed all these things. We have also looked at the, we have also defined what principles are and what parameters are with reference to universal grammar. And of course, we have looked at what universal grammar is at some length. Then, see the last point is relevant with respect to the first two that children are born with abstract structural knowledge about language, which allow them to discover the rules of particular language. So the abstract structure that we have available with us is what is responsible for a particular language, for us learning a particular language to engage in constant evaluation as to construct the simplest possible system, the linguistic data. It is the circular thing that we look at linguistic data to understand how we learn it. And then we finally, the way we learn language is through abstract linguistic structure. There is a purpose why I am mentioning these things to you, because this is just a reminder in order to evaluate the data that we are going to look at. The data, the set of data that you are going to see is not that set also invoking some of these issues. Can we not deal with that data under this framework? So let us see. And then I have just talked to you about these terms that I language means competence that is linguistic competence and then it means knowledge of language. So these are the interchangeable terms, e-language, performance and the knowledge of the use of language. This is the term which I want you to look at a fresh. Does this term make sense to you? Knowledge of the use of language. What could be the difference between knowledge of language and knowledge of the use of language? So in one way I could have summarized or given this title for what we are doing today that is there a difference between what we know as knowledge of language and then the knowledge of the use of language. Give the point. And if there is any, can that difference not be part of what we know as knowledge of language? In other words, can the knowledge of use of language also not be part of knowledge of language itself? Am I making my point? So what do you think this term means knowledge of the use of language? Consciously? Knowledge of language is not conscious. You have some intuition about it. Knowledge of the use of language is your kind of thinking and all the rules and then making sense. In a way to some extent you can say one can say okay but when you think little harder then it does not look like a conscious choice. For example, I am going to show you some of those things and then please evaluate this thing at that stage with reference to that data and then I will bring this to you again. Do you get this thing? What is the knowledge of the use of language and even before that what do we mean by use of language? The use of language is a e-language phenomena. And then is that knowledge of the use of language too different from what we know as knowledge of language? What you said about knowledge of language is clear. It is not a conscious thing. It is an abstract thing. It keeps on building. It is about the things that we know but we do not know them explicitly. All those things are fine. But then at that with such a description of knowledge of language is the knowledge of the use of language also not part of the knowledge of language is the key thing that we are trying to discuss in the domains of the things that we have seen so far and this is why I mentioned to you universal grammar, principles and parameters okay alright. So e-language equates language for general purpose cognizance. I just mentioned this thing. I know I have not discussed cognition in details with you. Give me give me give me a minute for that. You see there are 2 terms in the cognitive studies okay. In the domains of cognitive studies language is just one part okay. Language is not all about cognition or for that matter cognition is not the study of cognition is not everything about language alone okay. Cognition is a much bigger domain and in that domain language just happens to be one part that is one. The second is when with such a foundation when we start and when people come to language the question they raise is do we learn language the way we learn everything else or is language different from all other kinds of learning okay. Doesn't sound very complicated but when they look at it in details and with inputs from study of language the study of the structure of language and language is the whole phenomena has contributed a lot to this understanding to this question and on the basis of that is such a studies and in order to understand that question people have convincingly accepted that language may not be a general purpose cognition. So there are 2 parts of all kinds of learning all kinds of learning in the field of cognition can be divided in 2 parts one general purpose cognition and the other specific purpose cognition okay. So things like singing, swimming, riding a bicycle okay seeing and multitasking of all these things all of them are general purpose cognition okay because we put conscious effort in learning of these things that is the only distinction we put conscious effort in learning of these things nobody is born singing okay. See the argument is and the argument for why language could be specific purpose cognition is language to humans is exactly like flying to birds okay birds do not learn to fly with a conscious choice okay similarly humans do not learn to speak with conscious choice when we look at language we must look at it and when we look at other parts of language like you may have may have noticed we have never talked about writing how we write right writing is writing could be general purpose cognition because we learn to write with a specific efforts speaking a language grow us growing to speak a language or us growing with the ability to speak language has nothing to do with writing okay. So writing is like singing writing is like drawing but the language is language to humans is exactly like how flying is for birds or swimming is for fishes fishes do not learn to swim right similarly and here we are making the distinction we are using the word learn carefully so far we have been using learning language interchangeably with cognition with acquisition but now we are learning we are using it with a little bit of care get my point so with this distinction the of specific purpose cognition in general purpose cognition anything that is innate to humans or to the species is called specific purpose but again within when we divide and try to see language in parts then the argument is a language that is the use of language could be general purpose cognition I language that is knowledge of language may be part of special purpose cognition or the language is argued to be a special purpose cognition is when someone argues language is a special purpose cognition what they really mean is language the I language part the innateness part is only what makes language specific purpose cognition E language part or the writing part does not make language a special purpose cognition and that much is acceptable that is a good debate on that so do you understand what this means the E language equates language to general purpose cognition this making sense all right so let us move I can we can we can spend 1 or 2 hours talking about language and cognition and how language is a specific purpose cognition there has been a huge debate in both the study of language in the field of the study of language and in the field of cognitive studies about this I mean there could be a semester forget about an hour or 2 there could be a semester long course only evaluating these 2 2 aspects but let me let me show you more evidence I am more interested in that I am showing you evidence for you to decide how this works and then we I am I am more curious in in coming to the data part so look at it again so is this clear so the the reason why I talked about specific purpose and general purpose cognition because I mentioned knowledge of language and the knowledge of the use of language the argument is one could be part of a specific purpose cognition and the other could be part of general purpose cognition is there is that debate or is that argument based on some facts some data do we have data to support that or does the data support something else or show you something else this this could be one of the big things I I haven't worked myself on this part enough to to give you a conclusive answer but that that's a very interesting question in the field of both cognitive studies and study of language so let me show you some more part okay there is one more part here one more part here which I want you to keep in mind you must have heard the term culture this is again one of the terms which we have never mentioned in all our discussions so far because because this this is also argued to be relevant to e-language lot of people have a studied culture as part of language language having shades of cultural influences okay some people argue that it's not possible to separate culture from language and language from culture all such things are possible and nobody denies these things the idea is not to deny these things is just to underline that this is an important part relevant part and also we do find do find evidence for when we see when we acquire language the more interesting part or more interesting role of culture comes in acquisition of language when we acquire language and if language and culture are intertwined with one another are inseparable parts right then aren't we acquiring cultural parts as well when we are acquiring language or are we separating cultural parts and only acquiring linguistic phenomena from the environment right these are the these these are the questions which we did not discuss when we were talking about language acquisition okay we may have mentioned that we did not and once you look at how cultural cultural elements are really not separable from language then you realize that we do not acquire a language so when we are in a society and society gives us input for language acquisition we are just acquiring what is what is available in society we are not acquiring Hindi Telugu or Tamil and this is this is a technical point I am not not only interested in the names of the language I hope you understand any this this makes sense we we have talked about this point little bit in the at the earlier stage clear in other words we do not acquire language divide of culture it's it's not possible okay we may not when we say we do not acquire language without culture we are saying it's such a thing that we don't need to pay a specific attention to then all the more reason that we are making the same point that it's acquired along with language right so language is culture and culture is language this is this is all these are the reasons why people say the the last thing okay so keep keep this thing this part also in mind and I don't want to get too much into details of the definitions and these things it's not really worthwhile to for us to try define culture and that's not relevant for our discussion right now but one word about that is everything that we do and the the kinds of abstract constraints that we feel right and that we follow conscious as a conscious choice or as a subconscious choice is all coming from cultural components okay that's that's all about culture I can say rest you can read okay so now let me let me give you the data and I want your specific attention to the to the points that I am I am going to make with reference to this this data many of you have this much of competence in Hindi and if not don't worry the the the discussion is not the competence of Hindi the discussion is the point that I am going that I am I am trying to make the the first sentence Raju kalam chahta hai is not really a very acceptable sentence in Hindi see this thing I have put a question mark also because a star means completely unacceptable ungrammatical and question mark means not really unacceptable not really ungrammatical it may be unacceptable okay and to some people it might be acceptable also so it's just the judgment speakers judgment that is reflected with a star and question marks but as a conscious as a consensus decision this is not really a very good sentence in Hindi the question is why what's wrong in this sentence this sentence is and since you have you have gone through everything so it will make more sense to you this sentence has everything intact it has a subject it has a predicate it has it has a subject which agrees with the verb all kinds of agreements every single component that you have seen is taken care of subject predicate agreement agreement between subject and the verb agreement between subject and predicate its transitive nature assignment of cases thematic relations all kinds of things that you have seen which are responsible for giving generating a grammatical sentence is intact here why is this sentence not acceptable to speakers of Hindi okay the the point that I started with that linguistic theory must explain grammaticality or ungrammaticality of a sentence right all other ungrammatical sentences that we have seen so far we have seen the seen why such sentences are not grammatical right when we say what your name is right you may have heard people talking talking in the following way what what you are talking have you heard people saying this thing if I say what you are talking is not a grammatical sentence can we not explain this sentence why this is not grammatical this is not grammatical because this does not fulfill the requirements of question formation in English the requirement of question formation in English is tense must be fronted so when you say what are you talking about is a good sentence but when you say what you are talking or what you are talking about is not a good sentence right we have explained all these things so why can we not explain this thing and rather we don't have much to explain here this sentence from all the components of linguistic theory is a grammatical one right now the moment you talk about first sentence many people will tell you look at the second one this is this is okay and there is absolutely no problem with that sentence okay now let me we can we can talk a lot about these these things but let me let me give you a possible explanation and then see if it works or not you see the second sentence and therefore I have put the verbs in colors okay the verb in second sentence and the verb in first sentence to many people they look related but they are not related words Chahiye is a verb in Hindi which is a frozen verb that verb does not inflect for anything that is no tense marker nothing comes on that word okay like we have a take an example of a verb like Khana so we can say Khata hon right we can say Khara hon we can say Khaya right Khaya ga all kinds of things are possible all kinds of inflections are possible on that verb but on the word of Chahiye no inflections are possible okay that is what I am trying to say Chahna is a different verb which is in the first sentence Chahna means to want right and they look related because Chahiye listen to me carefully and you since you have seen all these things therefore I can move little faster and I have to give you more data okay listen to this carefully the verb Chahna what is the word Chahna means in the first sentence want clear this is the only verb in Hindi which cannot have imperatives do you understand what I mean by imperatives like when we say Khana as the verb what's the imperative out of this cow right or Khaya right if we say Batna then Batho or Batie when you when we say the verb Chahna the imperative is not possible so you can you can request someone to sit you can and the reason for that is the reason why imperative is not possible is you can request someone to sit to eat to read to sleep you cannot request anyone to want want is such a thing that cannot be either forced or requested understand this thing therefore Chahiye sounds like the imperative of Chahna but that's not the case therefore in this they look related but that's not the case they are two different verbs now the reason why I am saying they are two different verbs is following see do you see this the subject agreeing with the verb in the second sentence you know the rules and that I have underlined you that if the subject is followed by a post position in South Asian languages then the subject does not agree with the verb right I don't have the other example ready Raju Ne Chai Banai the example that I had given you long time ago the object Chahiye agrees with the verb and therefore that becomes the grammatical subject I have shown you the distinction between logical subject and grammatical subject before and the reason why logical subject was not grammatical sentence in that kind of context was because of the post position that was following it does not leave it in a position to agree with the verb in this case second sentence the subject does not agree with the verb right subject is not in a position to agree with the verb such sentences are called indirect sentences where subjects do not agree with the verb and the first in the first sentence the subject agrees with the verb right so that's the direct sentence now here is the here is the explanation which has very little or almost nothing to do with linguistic theory or this cannot be counted as theoretical explanation the argument the answer to such a question is such a such an grammaticality is in a language like Hindi and check it with your languages in a language like Hindi expressing desire directly with the help of direct sentences is not acceptable now you can question what is the desire here right the desire is to want for anything to want for things please pay attention to this thing and then you can think about it later to want for things right you can call it a hypocritical thing okay but to want for things is not permitted is is not acceptable for speakers of these languages so I and I can I can demonstrate this to you I don't want to say I can prove it to you but I can demonstrate it to you you can say I want to eat okay you can say I want to go home right you can say I want to buy all these sentences are okay aren't they so the moment you say I want to do something that's all right but if I want something is not all right okay I want to eat I want to go home I want to go home I want to go to school or all right that's also expressing desire but that's the desire about doing something is okay but the desire expression of desire to get something is not acceptable do you see this do you see this thing therefore this sentence is unacceptable change the sentence to my school I want to go home that's perfectly all right so school jana is also an object and I I want to translate it in the terms that you are familiar with school jana can be the object of the verb jana jana is a transitive word okay school jana becomes the object of the transitive word okay this is a transitive word when it has an object look at this what's the object here right now but so it's it's all requirements are fulfilled but it's still the sentence doesn't mean there is not acceptable but hold on I'm coming to that hold on so what I'm saying is the look at the nature of the object of the world if the object is just a thing that kind of object is not allowed but if the object is denoting about some doing something then that's all right acceptable therefore a possible conclusion I'm not saying it's a conclusive conclusion the possible conclusion is probably for speakers of this language expressing desire in a direct sentence is not acceptable and therefore why why even with that explanation what what is interesting why are we discussing this sentence the reason why we are discussing this sentence is possible expressing desire or not expression of desire can be captured in the structure of language with the nature of object okay but linguistic theory does not answer this question linguistic theory does not have a device to account for or to describe what goes on what what's explaining this culturally sensitive element and this happens only to India and maybe to other South Asian languages but doesn't happen to English in English it's perfectly okay to say okay to say I want a pen right I want I want a shirt in Hindi you cannot say I want a shirt is not possible to say you have to say so what happens with the second sentence is speakers consciously I'm sorry subconsciously convert the desire into a requirement Chahiye expresses requirement I need one so the moment you all kinds of desires we convert into requirement then it's all right we can even say muji five million dollars Chahiye as long as you are expressing it as a requirement that's allowed you are expressing even a small thing as a desire is not allowed is not is not acceptable see I hope you see the point so such a thing is difficult to to just to explain from the aspects of linguistic theory that we have seen so far clear you can you can think more about this thing let me make at least one more point before we stop look at this sentence we'll move quickly from this right and the second sentence is right both the things in red what are these elements in grammar in a sentence something equivalent to preposition it's these are these things are called post positions in our languages now look at the choice of the two post positions and the function of these two post positions they are not interchangeable we can we say Raju K pass doh bache why not what's wrong K pass definitely implies position of something sure sure absolutely right what you are saying is you you actually don't want to say that I own kids but it's okay to say I own cars why that that description is perfectly all right what goes wrong there are other languages in which we can say I have two kids I have two cars do they mean that they own kids no do you see we resolve this kind of ambiguity in English see even English speakers do not mean do want to make a distinction of the kind that we are making in these two sentences right but they did their effort to make that distinction is at this level is it still here in other words that does not get reflected in structure of sentence right we are not saying that English is bad language and they they don't make a distinction between kids and cars that's not what we are trying to argue I mean that's a that's a very inadequate in appropriate way of explaining language and if we if we if we make such if we if we just discuss such things or describe such things then it means we don't understand language rather what we are saying is speakers of English are aware of this distinction it works in English as well when someone says I have two kids they really don't mean they don't mean that we have no distinction between kids and cars that's that's taken care of that's here right it's just that such a distinction does not become apparent in the structure of language and you what you have said is absolutely right and that kind of distinction becomes apparent in the structure of language in Hindi that's that's always the point that I am trying to make what becomes interesting is how do we define it theoretically why is it restricted to the choice of post positions what we are saying we can what you said we can put it in a more generic terms and then that applies to everything which is human relations for Hindi and for the speakers of South Asian languages is inseparable elements for all inseparable elements you must use the first post position okay and for all separable things you can use the second one the terms are alienable and inalienable okay therefore human relations are inalienable in our cultural constructs and you define which what you mean by human relations whether you mean kids parents or even friends we can say you may remember one of the famous Hindi movie sentence remember this thing that was artificially created to draw people's attention see that movie or any other Hindi movie how many sentences are there in a movie of three hours do we even count but we paid attention or people paid attention to one sentence because that was artificially created because that is not the canonical order of the sentence right for drawing attention now let us not go there but all I am trying to say it is not possible and that distance there that kind of distance it is not possible to use K pass for inalienable elements in Hindi like inalienable the real example inalienable element in Hindi is let us say hands I have two hands how do we say that can we say mere pass do haath hai we do not mere pass do kaan hai do we say that no what is wrong with that sentence I have two ears I can say I have two cars mere pass do ghariaan hai I have two hands why can't we say mere pass do haath hai the problem is when we try to say mere pass do haath hai it sounds like it's a detachable thing and I have two things in my bag right so this is a real example of inalienable stuff right inseparable thing like our body parts are inalienable and inseparable human relations have been captured in the structure of Hindi as inalienable element therefore we cannot say mere pass do haath hai see this thing this distinction is captured in Hindi but how do we explain this in in linguistic theory it's just my observation and proposal that it's not possible to explain this fact in linguistic theory that's the argument that has always been given but the point is we just saw the sentence before therefore I gave you that in the as an order first the see both are about the use of language right do people teach us this thing that you cannot say mere pass do bachan hai because bachan is inseparable has anyone taught you this thing no has anyone taught us as a conscious thing that you know expressing desire for things is not a good thing in Hindi is not good thing for us we are great people has anyone taught us this thing no if this is part of a language true absolutely this is the linguistic theory about linguistic theory is about I language and the grammatical stuff at the level of abstraction agreed but these are also parts of acquisition which are subconscious which are part of acquisition we learn them without efforts if we learn them without efforts if the input comes through language and they get reflected in language then how could linguistic theory shy away from explaining these things I agree that it's not possible but what I am trying to say is it's not possible because we have not tried hard enough we have only looked at the aspects of the language I language we have not looked at the other things that we acquire along with language now you tell me whether these things are acquired along with language or not right the aspect that I have just described to you you agree with this thing or not you have always been speaking Hindi this way or by you I mean those who speak Hindi but you ask them to explain this is innate knowledge for Hindi speakers therefore my question is is the knowledge of language use which has been categorized as a separate thing of a language not part of knowledge of language itself and I am only giving you two examples that languages are full of such examples you need to evaluate your your language you need to evaluate your others other languages making my point clear okay do I have time for just one more example okay just one just one more example look at this sentence imperative sentences right one is when we when we teach these things it's taught as command and request if we put more efforts we can teach them as informal and formal right but look at it how does this how do we acquire this knowledge we know how to use these things very well without any difficulty or without any effort and we know more about such complexities in the sense that when I am talking to a friend when you are talking to a friend and I say is that really commanding a friend is that not a request that's where that could very well be a request in fact to a friend who you have very informal relationship with and you tell them that could sound sarcastic to them now how what sounds is not what we are discussing what we are discussing is we as the speakers of language know which one to use in which situation right how did we acquire this knowledge in fact if there is any sort of teaching that's quite contrary we are taught categorization how as request but then where did we learn that no that's not true somebody may have taught this to us but we never accept that we learn that we are taught we learn that if I like questions and quizzes that we give you you reproduce that on quiz also that one is command the other is request you get my point but we never accepted here here we know it clearly that we know how to use them appropriately we never tell our friends because we know we will sound sarcastic and probably they will not even come so if I if I am talking to somebody informally I and I and I can say and that's a good enough request right get my point and I have already given you this example I guess that if a commander in chief of army tells a army general that please come and see me in the evening it's very urgent sir I want you to see me in the evening he can make it as respectful as requestful as possible but that's not really a request is that a request the army general does not have an option to say sir I am busy this evening let us discuss this tomorrow even though it could be a trivial thing the moment the commander in chief says please see me in the evening means see me in the evening the army general knows this very very clearly right how do we get this get this knowledge this is never taught in any any schools isn't this knowledge in it which we acquire at the same time when we acquire language then how could we know that there is a distinction between the use of language and the knowledge of language but that distinction is really blurred the acquisition of the knowledge of use of language comes along with the acquisition of language therefore the knowledge of the use of language could very well be part of knowledge of language itself therefore linguistic theory must account for these things a theory that puts itself as a great theory for accounting abstraction which we do not have microscopes to account for I mean linguistic theory has done great job by restricting itself and accounting for aspects of I language but there is a startling evidence for us to show that the knowledge of E language is also part of knowledge of language therefore a theory which accounts for I language must account for the knowledge of language use as well these are the examples making sense look at this when someone says lunch ke liye chale right this is a question lunch ke liye chale or it's a suggestion let's go for lunch and someone answers that abhi to mujhe bahut kaam hai what does this mean that no I cannot come how did we understand this how did we interpret this thing where is the negative element in the sentence is there any negative element anywhere abhi to mujhe bahut kaam hai is a direct affirmative declarative sentence it doesn't say negation anywhere I mean people had a choice to say no I will not come but when people choose to say abhi to mujhe bahut kaam hai what's going on there that is we at times without getting into much details I can say at times people don't want to be negative directly right how do we know when we don't need to be negative directly who taught us this thing this is definitely the knowledge of language use but the fact that nobody taught us this things and we acquired these things on our own as innate part forces us to conclude that such a knowledge is part of knowledge of language can we can definitely put them in two categories at knowledge of the use of language and knowledge of language but again ultimately the knowledge of the use of language is part of knowledge of language that's the that's the point I'm trying to make alright so we stop with this example there are tons of such examples in language you can think of more alright thank you