 The next topic is grammatical examples. Worf provided number of grammatical examples. Although some of Worf's lexical examples on ischemos, they have generated considerable amount of discussion and it appears that he was more interested in the grammatical differences among language. Not only ischemos, he also provided grammatical example of nutica language which is spoken in the northwest of North America. And he gave an example where he says that the English sentence has a subject and a predicate for example. He invites people to a feast. So you have a subject and you have a predicate. In nutica there is no such equivalent and he gave the example that is boiled, hyphen eaters, hyphen go, hyphen for, hyphen he, hyphen does. Boiled eaters go for he does. So as you can see that in English language you have a subject and predicate. But nutica is a word basically with a root that is to boil and having five suffixes which is eaters go for he does. Then he also gave another example of hopi language in which hopi people do not have tense or the use of tense in their language such as when referring to time factor which is past, present and future they do not have tenses to answer that rather there are two words such as manifested and being manifested. Manifested is something or whatever there is and has been physically and becoming manifested is anything which is not physical. So with the help of these examples he highlighted and tried to validate the concept of linguistic relativity as well as linguistic determinism. Now we will look at some of the examples in detail which are the grammatical examples. So he believes that in English we come to respect the difference between noun and verbs as a fundamental distinction. Nouns refer to a long lasting and stable event such as horse and man whereas verbs refer to short lived action such as hit and run. Yet wharf asked why then do we classify temporary events such as lightning and spark as noun and why or dwelf persist and continue verbs. In hopi lightning is a verb because events of brief duration must be a verb. Wharf also commented not only in the context of hopi but also in Notica a language which is used on the Vancouver Island in which all words seem to be treated as verbs. This is just one indication of how grammatical characteristics vary from language to language. So you can see that in hopi you have lightning which is a verb but events of brief duration must also be a verb and then in Notica all words seem to be treated as verbs. Another example of grammatical diversity concern the extent to which a language uses words or morphology to signal meaning. In English the vast majority of a sentence use subject verb object and in most of these the first noun is the agent and second the patient. This order is adhered to rather rigidly in English. If the verb is intransitive which is one that does not take the object the remainder of the sequence holds subject verb. Similarly when the first noun is deleted it is very often replaced by pronoun. Other languages allow deletion of the subject more often. For a speaker of English language that violates the subject verb object order and may seem unnatural. Worf believed that grammatical distinctions effect can be seen and effect on just the way individual think but also their overall world view. In English there is a distinction between what Worf called individual nouns which are more commonly called count nouns and mass nouns. Count noun refers to bodies with definite outline for example a tree, a stick, a hill whereas mass nouns refer to objects without clear boundaries for example air, water, rain. Linguistically the distinction is that count noun take the plural morpheme whereas mass noun cannot. Thus we cannot speak of trees sticks and hills but not airs waters and rains. In addition count nouns take the singular indefinite article a but mass nouns do not. Now in contrast in Hopi there are no mass nouns. Although we cannot pluralize English mass noun directly we can do so by the use of phrase of the form count which is count noun plus of plus mass noun. So even though we cannot say waters or sands we can say bodies of water or buckets of sand but this form of expression according to Worf has cognitive consequences as to think of some objects as being container. The distinction between form and substance is not necessary feature of objective reality. Thus Worf suggested that English speakers think of objects as consisting of form and substance because of this grammatical distinction. So Worf has provided number of examples to show the grammatical differences among the languages. His examples clearly show the concepts of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity.