> It's meh. It's the jack of all trades really. It's not congruent. It's a literal mix. That's the fun part, all languages are a mix of other languages that ca

> It's meh. It's the jack of all trades really. It's not congruent. It's a literal mix. That's the fun part, all languages are a mix of other languages that came before them. English borrows heavily from French, which borrows heavily from Latin, which was partially inspired by Greek which... This isn't a problem, necessarily. It's just how language works and evolves, and while it can lead to some ambiguity and confusion, it can also be a doorway to learning (if you already know french, the many english words that are based on french will be easier for you to grasp, giving you a foothold to work off of) I find it interesting that you speak of "the best we can do" or that a constructed language could be "better" than natural languages. By what metrics would you measure a language as being better than any other? In other words, when you envision the "best language", what does it look like? What would it accomplish that natural languages can't? (in case my tone isn't clear, I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, not trying to be combative or anything like that, look forward to hearing back from you)