Words almost always fall short of expressing the most deeply-felt emotions and the most profound of thoughts. They are good for efficient transmission of thoughts and ideas, but oftentimes one finds themselves wishing there was a better way to say something...unless you live in Finland, and then words can describe everything ^_^

**I think words can fail deeply when it comes to imparting epic intensities of feeling and intricate complexities of thought. Yet it's possible that, given enough time in some ideal world, enough people could entertain the same (or at least very similar) thoughts and feelings that words would then suffice to convey the meaning of them.** - I completely agree that words don't do a sufficient job when it comes to describing our deepest emotions and most "out there" of thoughts. It's often so hard for people to describe how they are feeling even when things aren't as intense or complex, much less when they are. It's also quite hard to describe things we don't often talk about, such as highly specialized areas of science or intricate physical maneuvers, say. - However, some schools of thought would focus in on just that last idea: The fact that we _don't_ often talk about the things we find it hard to talk about. If we had enough people have the same experiences and particularities of thoughts and feelings, it's possible the words would become well able to describe each one, intricacies and depth/intensities of feelings and all. Language would constantly be reupdating itself with each new iteration of utterances, and so it would eventually be able to describe previously ineffable concepts and states of mind. This is part of the Wittgensteinian school of thought: [Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy of language](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/) focuses in large part on the fact that, while there are enormous limits to the crossings of our individual mental worlds, it's still likely for language to build on itself as more and more cases of specific thought are repeated and head, then, towards more commonality of utterance and increased ease of understanding. - Theoretically, there is nothing that couldn't eventually be subsumed under language---unless we "change forms" to become forms of being that feel and think without language at all. But it's possible "we" can't change forms. It's possible, that is, that "we" emerge form and are irrevocably tied to some kind of language. This is also part of the more [Wittgensteinian school of thought](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/). - I don't know if I fall into this position, since I tend to imagine there could very well be all kinds of different states of being in which language would not be necessary for comprehension. (Although - we would run into a problem there of what we would want to consider language.) It's an out-there example, but an instance of this could be if we ever [merged minds](https://www.inverse.com/article/4425-vulcan-mind-melding-is-totally-real) with each other. At that point, language could shift into literally shared feeling states---i.e., a _something else entirely_. ("We" might then also shift into forms of newness to an extent that we might consider ourselves to be embodying a completely different form of being, of course, but nevertheless.) - Also interesting to consider: [Nonverbal communication](https://www.helpguide.org/articles/relationships-communication/nonverbal-communication.htm) such as kinesics (bodily movements and postures), as well as [artistic/visual communication](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/vcj) like forms of painting and abstractions.