Welcome to Part 1 of a Week-Long Series on the Evolution and Limits of Language!
This article is part of a seven-day exploration into the fascinating and often flawed history of language—from its primitive roots to its tangled web of abstraction, miscommunication, and modern chaos. Each day, we uncover new layers of how language shapes (and fails to shape) our understanding of the world.

If you haven’t yet, be sure to check out the other posts in this series for a full deep dive into why words are both our greatest tool and our biggest obstacle. Follow the journey from ‘flamey thing hot’ to the whirlwind of social media and beyond!

---

Language: humanity’s greatest tool – or perhaps just the most elaborate way to confuse each other. Once upon a time, communication was simple. If something was dangerous, you screamed. If something was delicious, you grunted approvingly. Life was easy when all you needed to do was convey, ‘flamey thing hot’ or ‘toothey thing scary’. The early humans were onto something – keep it short, sweet, and survival-oriented.

But no. That wasn’t enough for us. Somewhere along the way, we decided it wasn’t sufficient to just think these survival gems internally. We had to tell the other guy too – who, let’s face it, was probably getting a little too close to the flamey thing for comfort. Thus, language evolved from a quiet cognitive tool to a public spectacle. Welcome to the grand tradition of miscommunication, where everything from ‘flamey thing hot’ to ‘freedom’ became a subject of debate.

This is the language insufficiency hypothesis: the notion that language, as fancy as it’s become, is inherently incapable of keeping up with our ever-expanding thoughts and abstractions. Sure, it’s allowed us to create governments, argue over philosophy, and send passive-aggressive texts – but at what cost? We still can’t agree on what ‘truth’ means, let alone ‘justice’. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s start where it all began, with some grunts, groans, and the dawn of miscommunication.

Internal Reflections: The First ‘Words’ in Our Heads

Before language became a social construct, it was something far simpler, more personal. Picture the scene: you’re an early human, fresh out of the trees and wandering through a world that’s more ‘toothey thing scary’ than ‘civilisation’. Your brain, eager to help you survive, starts talking to itself – internally, of course. ‘Flamey thing hot. Toothy thing scary. Berry thing yummy’. It wasn’t elegant, but it worked.

Back then, these thoughts didn’t need to be shared. You didn’t need to tell someone else that the “toothey thing” was going to tear their face off—they could figure that out by getting a little too close. The brain’s job was survival, and it had evolved just enough language to keep you from becoming lunch. No social niceties here. No philosophical discussions about what ‘toothey’ really meant. Just raw, unfiltered cognition, directed at keeping you alive for another day.

But eventually, survival alone wasn’t enough. Humans, being the social animals that they are, started interacting more. ‘Flamey thing hot’ became information worth sharing – especially when some genius in the group was about to stick their hand in it. And just like that, language left the internal world of the individual and became a shared resource. Thus began the long, painful journey from ‘toothey thing scary’ to “let’s discuss the moral implications of ‘freedom'”.

From Grunts to Groans: Language’s Social Debut

Now that we’ve mastered the art of internal reflection – courtesy of ‘flamey thing hot’ and ‘toothey thing scary ‘ – it’s time for language to make its grand social debut. This is where things start to go off the rails. You see, it was one thing to keep these pearls of wisdom to yourself. It’s quite another to explain them to someone else. And unfortunately, humans quickly realised that not everyone had the same instincts for not getting killed.

So, picture this: You’re sitting by the fire (because someone in your tribe finally figured out how to not touch the flamey thing), and you notice Bob – let’s call him Bob – is eyeing that red, shiny berry that you know is definitely of the “belly go bad” variety. You can’t just let Bob eat the berry and ruin everyone’s evening with his inevitable projectile vomiting. But how do you communicate this vital piece of information?

Enter language’s first public service. ‘Berry bad’, you say, but of course, Bob doesn’t get it. He thinks you mean it’s bad because you want the berry for yourself. So, being Bob, he takes a bite anyway. Cue the disaster. And just like that, language moves from personal survival tool to a shared (and often misunderstood) form of communication.

Suddenly, it wasn’t enough to know ‘flamey thing hot’ for yourself. You had to communicate it to the other guy, and that’s where things started getting complicated. Because the moment language became social, it also became messy. What was once clear and useful – ‘toothey thing scary’ – became open to interpretation. Maybe Bob thinks ‘toothey’ means ‘friendly’. Maybe he’s an optimist, or maybe he’s just the kind of person who needs to find out for himself why the toothy thing has those teeth.

And there you have it—the birth of miscommunication. Early language was about survival, but the minute you needed someone else to understand it, you were doomed. Simple, straightforward thoughts became tangled up in social dynamics. Suddenly, you’re not just saying ‘flamey thing hot’ because it’s true; you’re saying it to convince someone who might not trust your expertise on flamey things.

Language, once internal and personal, had to be shared – and in that sharing, it lost something. No longer just a way to label the world, it became a way to negotiate it, with all the misunderstanding and frustration that implies. It wasn’t long before we left behind the “berry bad” phase and moved on to even more abstract problems like “Who gets the last mammoth leg?” and “Why does Bob still not understand when I say ‘toothey thing scary’?”

---

Next ▶