> Now, you could say that Chomsky actually made the claim that /all/ humans have /the same/ innate language knowledge I could say that because he has made that

> Now, you could say that Chomsky actually made the claim that /all/ humans have /the same/ innate language knowledge I could say that because he has made that claim. You call it obviously false, he calls it obviously true. Mentally impaired humans do not necessarily contradict Chomsky's view: I think he'd say that they have an internal language ("I-language") that they are not capable of expressing in the real world. The idea that language is just a probability distribution over ways we can learn to communicate is the contrary position to universal grammar. If you're saying that's what Chomsky actually meant, you're basically moving his goalposts to the other side of the field.