There is a relationship between speech and cognition. There is also a relationship between written language and intelligibility. The longer and more convoluted a sentence, the harder it becomes to understand. The harder the sentence is to understand, the less likely it will self-replicate through artefacts, entities and systems of communication.
What this means is that our intelligence might be limited by our ling capacity. Shorter sentences tend to be focused and comprise the atoms from whichmore complex assertions are made. The longer sentences allow us to make more general statements. Understanding is related to the extent to which we might physically speak a sentence.
Intelligence is at least partially a function of the ability to compose or understand shorter sentences in constellations that allow for successful information replication and transmission. It is a lesser form of intellect, staccato and abbreviated. Holding a longer thread of thoughts in immediate perception as the product and substance of one sentence indicates a more sophisticated relationship with words and ideas.
This particular idea is neither the best nor the worst of them but carries some consequence. The language and the identities, political systems and moving frames of cultural reference that we inhabit are profoundly shaped by the diminishingly small idioms and tropes of communication that probabilistically percolate to ascendance through systems of communication.
This is one reason that the world is (always) in such a parlous state. Those narratives that persist and maximally self-propagate tend on average to gravitate towards the simplest utterances. The lowest common denominator of a communications system is rarely the most efficient or sustainable way of replicating either that system or the entities that inhabit it. It does, however, assure that some kind of language encoding and its generatively discontinuous (as reflexive) subjectivity persists.
It is really quite simple. Breathe out.
Daedelus Kite 