The languages I'm aware of (European ones) are all set up around the structure of talking about things, nouns, verbs, etc, and tenses that modify those things over time. Suzy and John go to the movies. Beans tasted good yesterday. Examples like that. But the concept of a "thing" is a non-dialectical framing, it's trying to take a snapshot of something away from the historical context it exists in, instead of looking at the totality.
For example, we could talk about a book, but the book is more than the paper and ink that it is printed on. There's the author, the machine that printed it, the publishing company, the trees the paper was gathered from, the ink, the language, the method of writing language, the readers who read the book, the whole history of fiction or non-fiction and the social context that creates those methods. The list goes on. Outside of the context of those other things that make up the totality of the book, the true nature of the book becomes difficult to understand. It would be incredibly difficult or even impossible to understand a book outside of any social context at all.
In a way we become alienated from the true properties of the book, the context of the book, not just in the sense of alienation during sale of commodities, but in the sense that by trying to compartmentalize it into a "thing" that exists here and now, we lose connection with what the totality of that "thing" was, is, and will be, and the other things that cause that thing to exist as it is now that are connected to it.
Even writing about dialectical thinking is difficult and hard to make sense of because all of our framing and words and concepts we use are all about trying to put things into tidy little still-frame boxes that can be easily understood at a glance. I think this unironically contributes to the wall of text leftism memes because we have to take time to describe the context of the situation outside of the normal framing and word usage and teach and entire new way of thinking.
I think this is why we end up with a lot of "Is China socialist?" type questions and answers that just look at whether the thing right now fits some abstract definition. It's trying to put the thing into a nice little box that we can understand. And we do that naturally by just talking, by the way we naturally form our words and concepts that are guided by the system of language that we just happen to use.
What I'm trying to say is that the very languages we use predisposes people to think a certain way and to play with concepts in a certain way, and that way happens to align with a non-dialectical thought process and framing. Socialists have to fight an uphill battle to communicate what is often an entirely novel concept using a language that wasn't meant to frame it that way.
sorry for saying it so harshly, but this is hard to not just call a load of pseudo-linguistic, pseudo-marxist rubbish! trofim lysenko-level "analysis".
firstly, "european languages" is not a useful category here in any way, shape or form. If you're speaking about any and all languages present in europe, then you're ignoring that they are composed of several unrelated families (albanian is indo-european, gagauz is turkic, basque is an isolate, etc.); if, however, you're talking about the indo-european family, to which most languages on the continent belong, then you are ignoring the multitude of languages of that family spoken outside the borders of what is commonly considered europe. all this also ignores the fact that you need to define what you even consider to be "european" in the first place.
furthermore, nouns and verbs are not uniquely "european" features. languages spoken outside europe also commonly distinguish between nominal and verbal expressions. moreover, tense does not simply "modify things over time"; together with aspect, it encodes how events are located in time and whether they are bounded, repeated, completed, or ongoing. many european languages also possess grammatical resources for expressing impersonal processes, reflexivity, passive transformation, modality, relationships, and other such concepts.
secondly, grammar is not the same thing as thought! imho, your argument relies a bit too heavily on the sapir-whorf hypothesis to have much merit.
such linguistic determinism (the idea that language determines what people can think) simply does not correspond to what we see in reality: people routinely develop ideas that are not transparently encoded in their grammar, use metaphors, invent technical vocabularies, create new grammatical constructions, and explain concepts that their everyday language does not make immediately obvious, etc.
writings in any science or field of study - mathematics, systems theory, ecology, historical writing, or Marxist theory - as well as any kind of (sub-)cultural jargon that may exist, all demonstrate that languages can always be extended to represent new relations and processes.
english, for example, communicates processes and relations quite effectively:
and those were just some rather simple sentences, weren't they? despite using ordinary nouns and verbs, they express a thoroughly relational and historical analysis. even the word "thing" itself need not imply an isolated, changeless object. a "thing" can very much be understood as a temporary stabilisation of processes and relations, if the context so dictates.
furthermore, dialectical thought itself requires abstraction. we cannot describe every causal relation surrounding a book every time we mention one. the problem is not that abstraction exists, but that an abstraction is mistaken for the whole concrete reality. "book" is a useful starting point; reification occurs when we treat that category as self-sufficient and ahistorical. the remedy is not to eliminate nouns, but to be able to move between levels of abstraction as needed and, if necessary, restore the relations that the abstraction leaves out.
the issue is not that "european languages" were "not meant" for dialectics. it is that everyday language is optimised for practical coordination, while dialectical theory asks us to make visible processes that ordinary communication can safely leave implicit. a socialist vocabulary can feel difficult not because it requires an entirely new language, but because it requires using familiar language against its most habitual, reifying tendencies.