It’s all relative though,guys, isn’t it? As a child, no one is intrinsically designed to speak any specific language equally well as he does it being an adult and there ( or here ? :) lies the rub. What I mean is that we, as adult learners of any particular language, always find ourselves in “the invidious position”, so to speak, compared to those ‘born and bred’ natives and whether we like it or not we’ll probably never acquire that intangible and subtle semantic mastery we’re striving for regardless. At least for me, it proved to be a bigger handicap than I’d thought. But we're all 'good' as long as can provoke someone's 'creative ire' I think.
For example, I’d love to have my right leg traded in for both Siunia’s native competency and MG’s linguistic reasoning because this is something I feel I lack desperately ( although I don’t even like ‘the former mentioned’ as I once said but I love the way she speaks :) but again I know such “transmogrification” is never possible.
I‘d like to quote someone who needs no introduction. He’s been a top reading matter for me since I read through his “Syntactic Structures” some time ago.
I think it’s strikingly relevant to what I’ve been “beating my chops” about here.:)
quote….that a substantial part of our knowledge is genetically determined “ … “he has provided evidence that “ unconscious knowledge” is what underlies our ability to speak and understand, close quote.
(Neil Smith about Noam Chomsky in (“Ideas and Ideals”)