The idea that children acquire their native language in spite of the lack of either directinstruction or sufficient number of correct or correcting samples goes back to Plato.Starting with this well seasoned “poverty of stimulus” premise, Noam Chomsky postulated the existence of an innate universal grammar (UG), and the entire theory became two postulates, one on the shoulders of the other. Further postulates about thenature of UG (for example, principles and parameters) had to be added to the increasinglyunstable cheerleader pyramid, so that the issue became complicated and hotly debated.Any general course of linguistics, as well as the Web, reflects the war of the words over the tiny piece of intellectual land .It seems strange that the problem of language acquisition exists at all. Language isa notation of thought. Why is then mastering notation is separated from acquiringknowledge, logic, and mastering communication with the world? A possible reason isthat we hear what children say but do not see what is going on in their minds.Circumventing this very large and complicated issue, I attempt to look at the bottom postulate of the disputed paradigm: the poverty of stimulus. This unaffiliated paper continues the examination of language as a quasi-molecular system from the point of view of a chemist who, inspired by Mark C. Baker , happens to ask, “what if the wordswere atoms?” The paper serves is an addendum to , without which some loose endswill hang in the air.