Commonsense embedded in the structure of Language -

Consider this sentence - John is writing a letter.

This means that John is composing a letter and penning down the contents on a paper.

But the question is - how can you "WRITE" a letter? A letter is a physical paper body with text on it. You can cut it, fold it, throw it, but how can you "write" it? How can you "write a physical body?" But the written content of a letter is so central and significant to what a letter means and stands for, that we say that the "letter is written" or "has been written", instead of "the letter has it/something written on/in it" (which would be the explicit meaning), for a finished written letter. So commonsense has made its way into shaping language itself. This is one way. Commonsense has made its way into the very construction of the structure of language machinery. We are all familiar with sentences whose explicit and implicit meanings are different, but that difference arises at the meaning or semantics-stage, not at the level of the very infrastructure of language itself, as is the case here.

The specific piece of commonsense involved here is that 'if X is majorly signified, explained or propertized by Y, then X is (as good as) Y'. That is, you can, say, refer to or call X as Y only, or say, make a form of X to be Y only (directly) etc.