Unified Language

Language limits thought. Don’t disagree, because you can’t express in any sensible way a counter argument without coming up against the barriers of the language that you were intending to use. In general, language is a very bad tool for expressing thoughts, because languages have limits in themselves - vocabulary, structure, even the sounds that can be represented verbally or in writing.

When you hear the Doppler Effect of a motorbike going past, it makes sense to a part of your brain that says “Look out!”, or some such (or perhaps “Look there!”). When I use a bland term like motorbike, I’ve not conveyed that it was the beautiful sound of a hog. If you know nothing about motorbikes, not only would you not find any motorbike sound beautiful, but you may not know what a hog is, let alone what it sounds like. I can’t convey to you the imagination associated with me hearing a hog go past - the intermingling of freedom & rebellion (& gratuitous expenditure), or sweaty clothing that’s been lived in, or comfortable old boots, or pain in the small of the back, or the smile on the face of the rider who just knows that everyone wants to be him.

Which language you speak modifies the way you think. Concepts in some languages are easier to express due to a richer vocabulary or practiced usage. There have been many studies in this area, but usually limited to comparing how people from different cultural backgrounds are relatively limited by their language. Others have run pet experiments on themselves to think in the abstract - in colours or shapes, or simply in abstract terms. Some have tried to concentrate on thinking in emotions or images. Many have tried to convey these ideas in writing (fiction) - but how do you describe the indescribable? That has to be the ultimate literary skills test. If you can describe the alienness of thinking in a new paradigm, but still convey a small taste of what it means to do so, then you have taken the reader beyond their comfort zone - & willingly.
I remember an Asimov short story that talked about how mankind ‘broke beyond’ the ten percent of the brain’s potential we currently use, to discover that a limit had been imposed on us by a superior race. The first to break through the thought barrier died & set off alarm bells across the universe.

That thought barrier is language. Being truly multi-lingual or multi-cultural isn’t enough, because some people can compartmentalise their brains & switch between aspects. Very few people operate seamlessly across cultural paradigms, & they are the most likely to be able to see the limitations of the languages they use & have a slightly richer communication because of it - but only slightly. Language is still the barrier in & of itself.
Language should not be limited in this discussion to speech or writing. There are plenty of other communication forms where the medium limits the message, or at least shapes it. Whether the message is an advertisement on TV (short attention span), radio (aural engagement), billboards (eye-catching), or a presentation in person (with the presenter) or over the web (without interaction), choice of medium is as important as content.

Within the media, there are languages used - aimed at demographics, cultural groups, interests, etc - some of which have assumed knowledge, or else the opposite, limit themselves specifically to not put an audience off-side (use baby-talk - like in political advertising). Each of these choices limits what the message can be. You cannot describe the impacts of environmental change on TV, for example, because the medium doesn’t have the language for it; print media do. You can trumpet higher or lower taxes, because the concepts are ‘simple’ - but you can’t explain how a tax re-structure works in balance (such as the introduction of a GST).
Within a business context, you can use some financial graphs in some meetings - as long as the trend is clearly highlighted - but not where a pattern is sought to justify a long term strategy - except where that is the sole purpose of the meeting. A software development team can use a modelling language to describe their proposed solution in infinite detail, but that doesn’t help when the audience is the CEO, who’s never seen UML before.

We keep on building new languages to fit purposes, & generally have to start from scratch to do so because of the limits imposed by the current (spoken/written) language, or else to cut across several languages’ limitations. This doesn’t solve a problem, but compounds it, building another Tower of Babel (quite literally, attempting to reach nirvana through adding more structure, only to find ourselves each speaking a different tongue).

What we need is a less structured language mechanism that allows us to convey thoughts more purely, effectively, intimately, accurately, & quickly. It needs to have no barriers inherent, no limitations, no inadequacies that need to be filled in, & yet be universal & ubiquitous.

The only barrier-free form of communication is telepathy. I’m still working on that, but I’m sure I made a dog look up once without calling it.