Smurf yeah we can.

Aladeen

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo

deleted by creator

“Dude”

Ook.

The simple answer to your question is no. Language is as much about distinction and exclusion as it is about description. The word “circle” stands for the description and properties of the circle, but would be incoherent if it did not also exclude straight lines.

You can often find examples where some things are considered premium or desirable not for the properties is has, but for what it lacks. Just think of all the products marketed to not have something like BPA, fat, sugar, Carbs, gluten, asbestos, lead, and even cruelty.

sounds skibidi

There’s a sci-fi movie from USSR, “Kin-dza-dza”. The natives of another planet in another galaxy were telepathes, but used language consisting of only a few words. “Koo” was for almost any word, “kiu” for swearing, “ketse” for matches (most valuable asset) and a few more. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin-dza-dza!

Than*

I thought we did this with buffalo

Chicken.

Let me introduce you to Goptjaam, probably the closest “language” that fits what you mean: https://youtu.be/ze5i_e_ryTk

Theoretically, yes. In practice, no. Suppose bla becomes a everything word. If anyone asks what bla means, you say it means bla. The other person won’t understand, you persist on bla bla bla meaning bla means bla, by which bla can mean anything and you realize that it just doesn’t work, because if it “means anything”, in reality it means nothing.

zjierbness