Not sure Chomskyan is dominant, but anyway, yes, an ability to be grammatical, is widely regarded as innate. Sort of like how every computer can compute the res

Not sure Chomskyan is dominant, but anyway, yes, an ability to be grammatical, is widely regarded as innate. Sort of like how every computer can compute the results of a Turing machine, regardless of the actual machine language or high level programming language glommed on top. Or perhaps to say that humans parse a sentence like a concatenative/stack language, but not an algol/C-like language. (Not saying exactly that, but saying that's the sort of statement that could get to the heart of it). Whereas "C vs Java" varies across cultures". That is, the low level hardware memory model is universal, but the shape of the structures on top are diverse. I would also highlight a distinction between universal grammatical rules that are key to "making any sort of sense at all" vs customizable rules that "disambiguate among multiple possible interpretations". That was put poorly, but bear with me. That is, SVO vs OVS is arbitrary, and could go either way, but members of each community need to agree. But number-color-object is nearly universal because color-number-object is uninterpretable as a concatenation of color with number object, unless a language specifically develops a concept of a color applying to more than one non-group entity. And here I speculate, but I can easily imagine a human language where an adjective before a number is understood to emphasize that all items are exactly the same color, or that the items are all connected with no other-color between them, like a "red 3 plates" understood to mean the plates are in a stack. Heck, I bet that if I were really good looking or famous and started using that pattern, it would spread