I wasn't saying those people I mentioned had "no language", Bill. I was proposing a hypothetical question to wonder about: what if WE ALL had no spoken language, other than sounds (but not words). I merely used the example of people with different languages whom I have met to make a philosophical point about what happens in direct human communication in the absence of common spoken language. I think you are perhaps dodging my hypothetical question by resorting instead to the usual busy flow of mentalizing about various details and apparent differences which words involve.

That is, I think you're looking for something to draw differences between, something to semantically pick apart and oppose on some specific detail. That's what people who deal mainly in words always seem to do. They pick apart things. They look for something to object to in what the other person said.

Think how much time we spend arguing fruitlessly about our mental symbols!

When one is not using words, but communicating intelligently in other ways to another human being, one does not pick apart things in that obsessive mental way that words involve, one integrates things...in my experience. One finds what is in common. And that was my point.

People use words all the time to oppose each other, and in so doing they distance themselves from reality and each other, because words are merely second-hand symbols for reality. We know what reality is, because we meet it directly. Our words, our naming of things, are attempts to render it into complex sets of agreed upon mental symbols...and those symbols are not the reality itself. The can't be. They are a mental abstraction of something that's absolutely self-evident when it's encountered directly.

Example: If I encounter an apple, look at it, pick it up, feel its texture, smell it, and then eat it...I know by direct experience exactly what it is...and in a very intimate way. I know something about it that words can't adequately tell me.

Someone who is very hung up on words, however, only thinks he knows enough about the apple when he has memorized the names of a whole lot of different types of apples and a whole ton of other stuff he's heard about apples or read in a book somewhere. He knows a bunch of words then, a bunch of mental abstractions and formalities....but he doesn't really know apples. Not until he has directly dealt with them and eaten them does he know apples.

People argue about words. They do so endlessly. And in so doing, they distance themselves from reality and from each other...in my opinion.

The fact that I have to talk with you about this using words, via a keyboard, has just chewed up an inordinate of my time which might have been far better spent by...eating a delicious apple! ;-)

My only real concern here is that you should understand the point I am driving at. If that happens, it will have been worth it. If not (shrug), well, then, I've wasted a bit of time, that's all.