The Insufficiencies of Language


The purpose of this post is my attempt to describe the insufficiencies of language and to explore better plausible solutions. The development of languages was slow and took thousands of years of biological and social evolution to attain the beginning of what we have today. Our concern with language is not so much about how it evolved but rather how it influences our relationships with other human beings and our natural habitat. We will also explore the attitudes which are shaped by what we hear, say and read. We react to language in a complex manner and in multiple ways simultaneously, namely mental, emotional, and behavioral. We call this semantic reactions. In order to reduce the reflex reactions to words we consider ‘bad,’ it would require our attention for us to understand the speaker first.

“There are no bad words.” — Jacque Fresco

Having reached a time that demands an investigation of all aspects of human affairs, we will be looking at the evolution of language briefly to emphasize how necessity along with biological evolution has brought about more and more effective communication for the events of the time. After this, we will focus on an overview of General Semantics.

Evolution of Language

Evolution of language in humans, which is a taboo subject for some, has been discussed for decades. In the last few years, there have been several proposals of how the ability to speak came about, by comparing humans to other species.

The Evolution of the Vocal Tract

Lieberman noted an unusual difference in the human vocal tract vs other primates. Homo sapiens seem to have their larynx positioned rather low in the throat. This means that in order to avoid choking we have to coordinate breathing and swallowing carefully. Lieberman suggests that this trait in humans is the result of an adaptation to communication. The descent of the larynx over our evolutionary history changed the shape of the vocal tract from one which essentially had the acoustic properties of a straight tube to one where that tube has a bend in the middle. This increases the diversity of vowel sounds produced, which in turn increases the carrying capacity of information carried by the vocal channel.

Fitch and Reby have shown that other mammals actually do lower their larynges during vocalization, and some other species have a permanently lowered larynx in the male of the species (red deer). Here we may ask, what might be the outcome for animals that have complex vocalization?

The lowering of the larynx also increases the total length of the tract. This changes the sound in such a way as to increase the perceived size of the animal making the sound, i.e. this perceived size enhancement may add to the driving force behind the descent of the larynx in species without complex vocalizations. Males that appear to be large may be more successful in competition for mates, or they can be more successful in alerting for predators or intruders (communication.) This might also be the case for Homo sapiens since there is some sexual dimorphism with the male larynx descending a second time around puberty. At some point, this ‘drop in the larynx’ anomaly was what made some fitter to survive their existing environment.

This brief example merely demonstrates the role that other species can play in the understanding of the evolution of language, even if those species do not necessarily possess anything like a capacity for complex communication.

Researchers are not entirely sure of how the first word was established, i.e. a minimum of 2 people agreeing that they will use a sound to represent an object observed through their senses, something existing in the physical world. As Martin H. Levinson, Ph.D. states:

“Strictly speaking, words don’t mean; people do!”

But people do agree that this happened somewhere between one hundred thousand years ago and ten thousand years ago. It is obvious that there is a huge gap between the communication systems of our nearest primate relatives and human language. Just like the gradual process described by Richard Dawkins on the evolution of the eye. The same is true for language as is for the eye.

We can safely hypothesize that communication amongst primitive men was slow. When someone wanted to say, they didn’t like something they would push it away. When their leg hurt, they would express themselves through simple utterances similar to the ones used today, such as moaning and groaning. If they held their leg, moaned and groaned, this communicated pain. When they wanted to show where the food was, they would point towards a direction. When danger was close, they might have made a loud noise, something like screaming.

There are many hypotheses, which are flawed, such as the “bow-wow” hypothesis even accepted by Darwin himself, the “yo-he-ho” hypothesis, the “ding-dong” hypothesis, and the “ta-ta” hypothesis. No matter which hypothesis is correct, or if a combination of these were responsible for making the ‘first’ language, I think I can boldly speculate that the mechanism for language was a necessity. The necessity for more effective communication in order to pass valuable information on, to organize and plan, or even deceive as is suggested by some.

That initial language development came about by using the senses that are in direct connection to the surrounding environment. Unlike the intermediate stages of the eye which have left behind fossil records, language, unfortunately, has not, simply because the language does not fossilize. So, we can briefly mention examples of three kinds of linguistic behavior that seem to have been identified by some to be living fossils; these are Pidgin communication, child language at 23 months of age and language of trained apes.

The similarities between these three, regardless of their drawbacks, are that all have some minimal structure, i.e. sentences are made of words which have been given distinct meanings, and the meaning of the sentence is in a limited way composed of those designated word-meanings. However, this is very far from what we have today in human language. But these three types of simple language can still be used to communicate the needs of the time. As needs change according to biosocial pressures so does the requirement for more complex or simpler communication systems depending on the situation. The Venus Project goes a step further by proposing a language which is relevant, meaning updatable, to our current understanding of our environment in order to reduce misinterpretation just like in mathematics or chemistry. Necessity once more has brought us to that stage that we need to formulate a language that will build a saner attitude towards communication and reality, which is implied by Jacque Fresco in his lectures.

As communities got bigger, and tools were created, people started specializing in particular areas, such as skinning of animals, making clothes, getting water and hunting, and the interaction between people became more and more complicated. At first, people communicated about things that other animals communicated and still communicate about, for example, food, water and predators, and things they could observe with their senses. Today we also communicate about things that do not exist as physical entities. For example freedom, free will, metaphysics, and rights. Perhaps it is these things that seem to separate us from other animals. Yuval Noah Harari illustrates very well how these myths also tend to unify us in entire groups which are against other groups depending on what myths they believe. Maybe without these myths, we would not have been able to unify the uninformed, scarcity driven people of that time to form villages, towns, cities, regions, countries and eventually entire unions.

Communication and interaction with each other evolved. Eventually, through necessity and gradual development, we came up with languages which branched off into different languages as villages split and people lived in different areas. We used these languages to attempt to control large groups, using metaphysical references to attempt to maintain some sort of morality in a much more uninformed population. Something which is easily overcome today by providing more relevant education, as done by The Venus Project.

Different conditions in the new environments discovered by those leaving the original village had to come up with new words for things. Also meeting other tribes caused them to adopt other words. Our languages, just like us, evolved very gradually with no end goal or purpose. If the system works within its environment, it survives. As we can see today, in our language we use words that our parents didn’t use in their youth. Such as ‘the internet’, ‘Facebook’, ‘Google’, ‘iPad’ and ‘iPhone’. These words produce whole sentences, “I connected to the internet, googled Facebook with my iPad and can also do so with my iPhone.” If you could go back in time and say that sentence to a person several centuries ago, he would think you were speaking a different language. The Venus Project proposes that we place a purpose to language, allowing us to communicate information more accurately, concisely and to the point, with as little misinterpretation as possible.

Depending on who is counting we have anything between 3000-8000 languages in the world today. Unlike our evolution, we cannot know if all languages that exist today had a single common ancestor at some point which scattered into different directions with migration out of the plains of Africa. Even though it would be interesting information to have, it will not stop languages from being just adequate, adequate enough to survive as a simple system in an attempt to control human behavior but not adequate enough for human survival.

“Languages we speak today are subject to interpretation and therefore we speak ‘at’ each other rather than ‘to’ each other.” — Jacque Fresco

He uses such examples to bridge the gap between our ignorance and existing relevant information. One phrase can be a whole field of study summarized by simple words. In this case, he is referring to the subject of General Semantics.


  1. I’d love to see sign language taught to all toddlers. That way we could have a truly universal language. No need to learn a second language as we all would have one. Plus it would limit the hurdles that deaf people face.

    • Except all countries have their own unique sign language, so it wouldn’t necessarily bring us any closer than we are now. To do that you would have to agree on a common language for all, or invent a new one, which is exactly the same as if you were teaching all children to speak the same verbal language.

    • I think we have to go beyond just the language thing.. everyone will continue to speak its own language.., but surely need to use our hability to speak beyond language..

  2. i see in our future a way to connect the picture we can easily create in our mind to a screen , and a picture can speak 1k words . i think that conection its necesary , if we may learn to have telepatic imagination would be great…

    but in any case, any language we learn it might be good if its learned in the way its embeded into the subconcious mind . i learn english by watching tv and doing internet stuff , i’m not sure this is the way to realy connect the words to subconcious mind .

  3. … And what about graffitis? Are they going to be part of the new world. The first kind of expression in Lascaux’s cave in the paleolithic times was primarily essentiel as we could get a sense of proper historical traces. Bones, hand made tools… archeological studies can always find new stuffs but still if all disappear on earth should we use some laser graff in the universe in order to send message for our spatial explorers?
    So many interpretations could be done for words but for man like for dogs the best thing he can do is just pee on walls to say it’s his property; “it’s where I lived It’s where I was”.

  4. It still amazes me how languages were formed and re-formed. I don’t particularly like it when slang takes over however and thus destroys the origin of a respectful language. icariin 98%

  5. Hi, i completely agree with this opinion about language.
    I am a speach and language therapist, i work with children, many of them affected by sensorial disease. I can see evryday the importance of using alternative channels to reach a good level of communication with ourselves first and with other.
    Emotional communication is more significative than every word of every codified language.
    ‘Cause emotional intention is related to the autobiografic facts of every person’s life related with his community. I think emotional communication is similar in every culture. So i consider communication as relation : the expression of our humanity as the first choice in relastionship, coperation and co-creation of better way of living for all the people.
    I believe every one wishes get well and peacefully and getting good vibes with himself and the world outside. If we have good thinking about us we can change the world.
    (Sorry for my english)


  6. There ARE NO BAD WORDS. slang IS language, In no way is it differemt from the original. Simply different. If We hang up on small irrelivent details We comlletely miss the point, and stiffle growth.

  7. Also, Esperanto IS a great politically hidden asset of humankind. Since it is wrongly interpreted as an intent to destroy nationalism, then it is put aside by politicians. Sometimes you need to convey spoken words, since you can not see the other person for sign language. English is NOT the most perfect means to do it. Esperanto is way SUPERIOR to English (and any other “naturally” devloped language) in arguably about 25 very importante issues.

  8. With the technological advances we have today it is very conceivable to have personal translators that we just carry with us or wear on our persons. All languages would be imported into a world database (regardless of region) and people could hear their own language being spoke to them regardless of the language being spoken. Translators and voice recognition has exponentially grown in the last 20 years. Imagine the advancement in the next 20 years.

    This would actually only require people to learn “a language”… Not any particular language. Once the database was implemented new words would just be added as necessary and people could adjust their translators according to their needs and region visited. (This was actually done on Star Trek 30 years ago… Haha)

  9. Interesting discussion, but not surprising for Jaque as he has such a young and pliable mind. Great observations on his part and many of his concerns about the shortcomings of language have been echoed by Chomsky and others. I spend a lot of spare time working with peers to develop meta languages and meta models to support common patterns in business domains, across supply chains, value chains, and amongst stakeholders who wish to map their scenarios to better understand causality and predict future outcomes, risks, and opportunities.

    One of the ways we have begun to address the gaps in communications is to introduce contextual relevance with terms as Jaque rightly pointed out: any term can be interpreted in numerous ways based on a variety of filters. The challenge is identifying the right context for a given situation in order to ensure consistency of perspective from the “speaker” to the “listener”.

  10. Hello,
    I appreciate your concern and was delighted to read the entire piece of content. The language has evolved over time and various technological advancement have resulted in reducing the language barrier which are yet to be demolished. My concern is not with the vocal language itself but the understanding in different fields. Great cities are not possible if the stake holders do not work together and to make this happen every one needs to be share a common goal. This can be communicated but the difficulty which arise due to different understanding among professionals might prevent in fulfilling this goal and results in inefficiencies. How to reduce this gap? Another issue remains with urban planning being a very less know profession as highlighted on

    Can awareness about urban planning help in reducing this gap and inefficiencies, what do you think?

  11. Pingback: Ťažkopádnosť jazyka - DAV DVA - kultúrno-politický magazín

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *