Thinking of minimal languages as 'simpler' might not be the best way to think about it. The words are simpler words, but we hope to still express the complexity

Thinking of minimal languages as 'simpler' might not be the best way to think about it. The words are simpler words, but we hope to still express the complexity of the concept, while staying as close as possible to cross-translatable concepts. In this particular case, 'tool', 'distant', 'seem', 'use' might not be so cross-translatable, but we could use simple structures for a simpler explanation. e.g. a telescope is a thing because of a telescope, we can see things that are far from us (but this doesn't tell us *how* we use a telescope) Goddard's original explanation could also be revised for different audiences - the beauty of minimal languages is that they are flexible.