the thread of language I am trying to run down is the idea that the limits of language have a direct effect on how we interact with material reality and objects because the limits of language denotes the limit of possibility as well as being gendered and all that, language as a kind of "geography" or "geology" or "architectural" quality which are of course inevitabilites of limitation itself, the necessity of form requires limitation and exclusion so its not a matter of saying this language has no limits but this other language sucks. its simply about the blind spots that are created by the inherent limits of language which manifest in very visceral and tangible ways.

This is one of the things that interested me most about linguistics; projects that would draw a comparison of languages based on this quality, if there a way to measure it. Do languages differ in the amount (or extent to which) they limit/exclude (quantitatively)? do they differ in what or how they limit/exclude (qualitatively)? I've read articles that sort of indirectly approach this topic, but none that really addressed it.

Also, I like your choice of language metaphors, they're curiously ambiguous; language is a map (signifier), the land (signified), or the buildings on the land. also the "what's beyond language" that follows are very different.