Well, language is ultimately very limited in communicating the incredibly intricate and specific experience that is being a human being. Even when describing things we are often liable to expressing things in a way our audience can't understand. No one is quite able to experience that same sunset in the same way, the colours appear different, the state of mind you watch it in can be different, our regional language or personal history changes how we perceive it. E.g., Russian speakers are much better at distinguishing shades of blue because they distinguish between the dark and light much more than we do in English, and likewise English speakers are much better at distinguishing certain types or shades of colour than German speakers because we have more words for it (i.e., magenta, cyan, aqua-marine, etc.).
In Zen as well (and most schools of Buddhism teach similar ideas), it's believed that the concept of zen cannot be taught at all through language and that any attempts to do so immediately betray the concept of Zen. Zen can only be experienced, not taught or communicated.
I read Siddhartha by Herman Hesse recently and the final chapter deals very eloquently with the dilemma of using a dualistic language to express nondualistic ideas, thoughts, or emotion ultimately engenders confusion and misundertsanding.
Edit: I'd meant to write this part earlier but forgot because it was pretty late. To expand on my thoughts on language, as a communicative device I do believe it is incapable of communicating the totality of how we feel or who we are. The very fact I have to add this part on and that I intend to clarify some of what I say in another post I think shows how language has its ineptitudes when it comes to expressing how we feel and what we think to others. All relationships are in some sense para-social, it is a one-sided and often one-dimensional exchange of information or parts of our beliefs or opinions to one another. It's practically impossible for anyone to know themselves, let alone know other people, not least because the language we use to convey ourselves to others is too fragmented and incomplete to express the totality and complexity of any given human being. Language is the performance if the belief, the idea, the feelings, not of any of these themselves. Language is a barrier unto itself, it is a performance, a recreation of the real in way that we hope are intelligible to others, it is not the real itself and therefore we can express the whole of what we feel and cracks begin to appear in our understanding.

Emotion is something that is felt, take for example love, the degree to which it can be expressed in words is limited, we can utter I love you or we can perform non-linguistic actions such as buying them flowers to demonstrate it, yet what is felt when one is in love cannot be adequately expressed with words as feelings are non-linguistic in nature yet language can bridge the gap to a certain extent but not fully.

Just like we have a word for happiness what is felt is a purely subjective experience yet because of the commonality between other people we know what happiness is but not what is felt.

At one point in our history written and verbal language was primitive yet this does not exclude the range of human experience that is universal amongst men it’s just that despite the evolution of our language the full range of human experience cannot be truly expressed.

But what does this mean ? Does it mean there’s flaws in our language or that some parts of human experience are just ineffable ?

In Zen as well (and most schools of Buddhism teach similar ideas), it's believed that the concept of zen cannot be taught at all through language and that any attempts to do so immediately betray the concept of Zen. Zen can only be experienced, not taught or communicated. — Dorrian

True, that, although there's some irony in the fact that Zen monasteries generally maintain an enormous library of canoninical literature and commentary. I agree that Zen relies on realisation (not necessarily the same as experience) but the actual monastic environment is highly structured and very disciplined. Within that milieu, it is certainly true that the aim is to convey an ineffable insight.

But what does this mean ? Does it mean there’s flaws in our language or that some parts of human experience are just ineffable ? — kindred

'The ineffable is not something mystical or mysterious; it is merely that which evades description. But while It evades description, it pervades experience.' ~ Thomas Short (a quote I read somewher on the internet, but can't recall the exact source.)

I can't think of anything, actually. Most, myself included, simply don't have the gift. Or the receiving end is... "not compatible". Like a CD player trying to run a Blu-Ray disc. It just doesn't "land" for some people. Metaphors.

"Upon seeing my formerly-infirmed partner released from the hospital, I felt such joy, as a prisoner in solitary confinement feels upon taking his first steps outside as a free man. A massive weight lifted from my shoulders, a yoke from my neck broken free, I felt anew. Tears welled up in my eyes, as if I had just scratched off the final number of a winning million dollar lottery ticket. It was like my whole life was leading up to this moment, thoughts of youth, adolescence, early adulthood flurried my mind. I was ecstatic, my legs shook, I could barely stand, but powering forward with every fiber of my being I took what seemed like an eternity running toward her to embrace my beloved for the first time in what seemed like an eternity."

(something like that, except actually good)

We all have the same base emotions, sensations, and understandings of the same. Stress and eustress. When people say "you can describe emotions but you can't describe how it feels to the person" it's basically just saying "people feel differently about different things", different bowls of soup with different temperatures and amounts, but nonetheless all from the same conceptual table. Take a sunset described in painfully almost unnecessary detail. It's physically the same for everyone, but just because some people feel happy, hopeful, or nostalgic while others may feel depressed, defeated, or dismayed, doesn't mean the emotions can't be described explicitly, especially through metaphor and symbolism.

Is there anything that language can’t express? — kindred

Is here anything language can express? What does it mean to say that language "expresses"?

Is there anything that language can’t express ? — kindred

Language expressions are countable.

(You could conceivably create a list of them)

Even though there may be an infinite number of language expressions, their countability severely restricts what can be expressed.

For example, there are uncountably infinite real numbers. Therefore, it is impossible to express all of them in language.

For example, "true arithmetic" is the set of all true statements about the natural numbers. This set is uncountable. Therefore, it cannot be expressed in language. Hence, most of the truth about the natural numbers is ineffable.

If the physical universe is structurally sufficiently similar to the natural numbers, then most of the truth about the physical universe is also ineffable, meaning that only a very small fraction can be expressed in language.

Language expressions and digital models are both countable. Therefore, a digital model will be able to capture only a very small fraction of the truth about the physical universe.

Conclusion. The majority of truths cannot be expressed in language. Most truth is ineffable.

When you explain the joke, it isn't funny.

You had to be there.

What can’t language express? Diddle-de-dum!

The state of mind that expects or offers a serious linguistic answer to this question.

Dance.

Language always only ever points beyond itself ...

The word is not the thing.

What does it mean to say that language "expresses"? — tim wood

To describe some aspect of experience or reality. To articulate wants and communicate ideas.

What it is like to experience.

This is seen by the inverted colors thought experiment. Suppose your internal experience of colors was inverted to everyone else's, such that everyone's red is your green, and vice versa. No one would no the difference. If this were the case, no amount of questioning would or could ever reveal it. That is because the contents of experience are inexpressible.

This is not surprising. When you learn the word red, your teacher points to a red truck, a red crayon, and says "red". Eventually you associate "red" with a particular color sensation. But the teacher is unable to point to the sensation itself, and say "red" if the sensation is red. The teacher can only point to objects that evoke that sensation in herself. So if the same object evokes your red in yourself and your green in herself, that is both just "red" às far as you two are concerned.

We lack language to express the content of sensations, we can only compare them to other sensations. This is equally true of all five senses, the "other" senses (proprioception, interoception, equilibroception, others?) , and emotion.

Is there anything that language can’t express ? I don’t think it’s very good at expressing emotion because emotion is non-linguistic. — kindred

No, we use ordinary or poetic languages for expressing emotions. Often in combination with other ways of expression, e.g. gestures, sounds, and pictures.

Some ways of expression are recognizable as symbols for emotions, because they exemplify properties shared by what they express.

For example, "Ouch!" expresses sudden pain by exemplifying some property it shares with the experience (i.e. something sudden, uttered as if being hit or surprised etc.) It's a metaphorical exemplification that's frequently used in literature, theatre, music, pictures, cartoons etc.

Language often fails to describe specific yet often powerful experiences, which is why poetry and songs and stories are so important to human culture, as they get closer to replicate the indescribable feelings in actual experiences.

However, the main downfall of our languages is also the reason why telling stories works and is done for a living- some speakers are better than others.
Flawed can easily lead to miscommunication, and so more often we argue over language than substance. Maybe if we could use it better, we could also fix language easier.

Language cannot express feelings but merely describe them I’m just wondering if there is other things that language cannot express or has limits … thoughts ? — kindred

The philosopher I feel most at home with is Lao Tzu, who wrote "The Tao Te Ching," one of the founding documents of Taoism. As the first verse says "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name." To vastly over-simplify, "Tao" means the world.

Again, to simplify, the map is not the territory, the story is not the experience. When we describe something with words, the words and what we are describing are two different things. "My memory of my mother" is something different from my memory of my mother. So, to answer your question, we can't truly express anything with language, but it's the tool we have to communicate our experiences to others.

Is here anything language can express? What does it mean to say that language "expresses"? — tim wood

The other extreme is asking whether there is anything that is expressed that is not language. We take language to be the symbolic representation of reality, where "cat" is another way of representing that thing that wakes you up to be fed every morning.

But that thing that looks like a cat is also but a symbolic representation of reality if you subscribe to a representational model where direct access to the cat is not available.

For example, there are uncountably infinite real numbers. Therefore, it is impossible to express all of them in language. — Tarskian

This doesn't work. The fact that you can't express every number at once because there are an infinite number of numbers doesn't mean there is any single number that can't be expressed. That there is a certain number that has not been expressed in fact doesn't mean there is a certain number that cannot be expressed in theory.

That I've not seen all the planets doesn't mean those I've not seen are ineffable. That some are unknown doesn't make them incapable of being expressed once known.

What is language trying to express if not human experience? What else could be the purpose of language? My inklings are that language is flawed on a conceptual level as a way to communicate anything fully, though of course practically it's useful on a day-to-day level. Ultimately, the issue of language is one of perception. We can never perceive the perception of others. What we call happiness isn't necessarily the same thing others around us experience. It may not be as deep, as satisfying, it may feel completely different. We have no way of knowing. You have no way of knowing exactly how I feel writing this no matter how long a description of my current mood I write, and likewise I have no way of knowing how you'll feel reading this. The range of emotions we can express and how we express those emotions is still lacking linguistically and varies from language to language. Spanish has far fewer words than English but also has different tenses, genders, structures its sentences differently, and even attributes blame differently to English. Spanish speakers tend to remember events based on how they happened whereas English speakers remember events based on who did it because of how blame is attributed in each language, thus we see how language can shape perception and therefore changes our ability to communicate effectively.

Language is a barrier unto itself, it is a performance, a recreation of the real in way that we hope are intelligible to others, it is not the real itself and therefore we can express the whole of what we feel and cracks begin to appear in our understanding. — Dorrian

Welcome to the forum.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm not really understanding this. Should the "can" which I have highlighted be "can't"?

If so, what cracks in our understanding are you referring to?

So, to answer your question, we can't truly express anything with language, but it's the tool we have to communicate our experiences to others. — T Clark

Language is limited if it extends itself beyond descriptions of reality, logic or experience. It especially fails when it comes to describing emotions and sensations although poetry or song may be able to invoke or replicate the emotion that is intended to be transmitted by it.

On the other hand it’s great at transmitting ideas and knowledge be they abstract, conceptual or concrete as long as the language furnishes them adequately otherwise it would lead to misunderstanding.

Our extensive vocabulary must account for objects of perception and abstract thoughts and ideas in order to be an effective tool of communication and expression. Sensations produced by the nervous system such as taste can be captured by language too but because they are experiential and sometimes subjective they tend to not be expressed so well by language even though we know what the word sweetness is, the palette of sweetness evades linguistic expression because it’s bigger than our vocabulary can express.

What is language trying to express if not human experience? What else could be the purpose of language? — Dorrian

It can also express ideas from abstract to concrete. The descriptive power of words and language only fails when it overreaches this domain by trying to express emotions and sensations that are produced by the nervous system which is non-linguistic in its communication.

That I've not seen all the planets doesn't mean those I've not seen are ineffable. — Hanover

If there are more planets than possible words then you can't give each of them a different name. It doesn't matter if you have seen all of them.

If there are more planets than possible words then you can't give each of them a different name. It doesn't matter if you have seen all of them. — Tarskian

No issue, just make up a new word for it. Or letter number designation.

If there are more planets than possible words then you can't give each of them a different name. It doesn't matter if you have seen all of them. — Tarskian

I don't understand what it means to have more planets than possible worlds if possible worlds are infinite in number.

But, if you could have infinite planets, you could name each one as a number. I don't follow how there can be an infinite set of planets but not an infinite set of names.

You can just assign a newly discovered planet for which we don’t have word for, a made up word or letter-number designation. That word then would be its identifier… — kindred

If you know that there are uncountably many of them, you cannot keep assigning countably many identifiers. You will run out of those.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum

Cardinality of the continuum

The real numbers R are more numerous than the natural numbers N.

Planets are actually a bad example because they are obviously countable.

But, if you could have infinite planets, you could name each one as a number. I don't follow how there can be an infinite set of planets but not an infinite set of names. — Hanover

Planets are indeed countable. There are uncountable sets too. For example, the individual points in a line.

You will run out of those. — Tarskian

No you won’t, you can just create new identifiers (words).

No you won’t, you can just create new identifiers (words). — kindred

You can count identifiers. You cannot count points in a line. So, you will never be able to create an identifier for each point.

That’s because the points on a line are infinite, why can’t there be infinite words ?

That’s because the points on a line are infinite, why can’t there be infinite words ? — kindred

There are infinite identifiers possible, but still a countable number of them. There are uncountably infinite points in a line.

Therefore, it is not possible to create a one-to-one mapping between them.

If aleph0 is the number of countably infinite elements, then the number of uncountably infinite elements is 2^aleph0.

There is not just one measure for an infinite number of elements. Sets can have different possible infinite sizes ("cardinalities").

This is the essence of Cantor's 1891 diagonal argument:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument

Cantor's diagonal argument (among various similar names[note 1]) is a mathematical proof that there are infinite sets which cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers – informally, that there are sets which in some sense contain more elements than there are positive integers. Such sets are now called uncountable sets, and the size of infinite sets is treated by the theory of cardinal numbers, which Cantor began.

Thanks for that, it just goes to outline another limitation of language, not its finitude but its inability to map to uncountable infinite elements.

This would be impractical in its application in the real world and would serve no use apart from counting, though the points in a line are infinite naming/identifying each point in a line would be an unnecessary exercise.

There are different types of language such as mathematical or musical which overcome the limits of ordinary language in what they can express.

Non lyrical music is auditory and can evoke certain emotions that ordinary language cannot such as longing or nostalgia or other emotions felt by the subject when hearing it.

This would be impractical in its application in the real world and would serve no use apart from counting, though the points in a line are infinite naming/identifying each point in a line would be an unnecessary exercise. — kindred

This is just one example of the problem.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of true statements about the natural numbers cannot be expressed in language. The arithmetical universe is actually replete with ineffable truth.

If the physical universe is sufficiently structurally similar to the arithmetical universe, then this is also the case for physical truth.

While pure reason, and therefore arithmetic itself, are blind, physical truth is much more observable. Unlike arithmetical truth, we do not even need to understand it, in order to see it. However, even though we can see it, we cannot express it in language. There is fundamental mathematical support for this case.

Furthermore, not all of these ineffable truths will turn out to be irrelevant.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of true statements about the natural numbers cannot be expressed in language — Tarskian

How’s that?
So they are not well-formed? Something is amiss.