If you watch people on the edge of a field-of-knowledge the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis starts to seem obvious: otherwise why would the they need to keep inventing language?

The only problem is externality pricing.

Building https://negationgame.com

I think a soft Sapir-Whorf is probably true. Limits of your language aren’t exactly the limits of your world because you grok that you don’t have words for something and push the language frontier but thinking those thoughts are harder unless your primary mode of thinking isn’t language based

Agreed! 

1. If we extend the Whitehead formulation to language, a more advanced language will create more complex primitives (words, phrases)  for users to wield

2. Seems like great writers in all languages acquire greatness by expanding the ontology? A purely static language only exists in a dead society.

I think there are two hidden effects of a dearth of language:
1. interestingness is lower, because there’s fewer legos to play with, interesting sentences require redundancy 
2. exploration is lonelier because it’s only your head terminology, no one else can wield your ontology