There are two implications of “language structure” and the appropriate responses given here are repudiating each other in light of the fact that they are befuddling the two.
One is the basic arrangement of a language. That, speakers adapt subliminally. Their cerebrum gets on examples and creates right sentences and rejects wrong ones.
Making sense of what that is — is the reason language specialists like me get paid heaps of cash. (That part is incongruity.)
You need to realize that one, on the grounds that else you’re simply assembling words in manners that have neither rhyme nor reason. You can’t shape sentences.
The other is the means by which instructors have endeavored to arrange that framework. That is a lot of “rules.” Generally, they were initially seen by etymologists, and after that sifted down to language educators. The issue is, obviously, that it’s a round of Broken Telephone — loads of principles have been mutilated, discretionary examples have been transformed into mandatory ones, markers of high society discourse that different classes do fine without have been transformed into fundamental necessities, and extremely pivotal examples, individuals have no clue about. They simply do them.
English guru offering best spoken english class in noida