You might be right. I dont think its certain though. Humans seem to be able to communicate across language gaps in ways we can't with animals. Things really could be that different. For example, all human languages that we know about have some idea of a who doing something to a whom, even if they express it in drastically different syntax. For all we know (I'm just making this up, don't take it too seriously), whales might experience the world as a stream of objects. Maybe that's perfectly fine for whale existence. But we can't even really conceptualize that! And how would we know, anyway?

Eh, if I were a mad scientists with a unaligned AI and a wetlab I'd keep jamming more and more language related genes in animals to see if anything interesting happens. I know there's been some work around the NOVA1 gene that is showing interesting results.

Flowers for Algernon IRL? Planet of the apes? What part of this did they miss? (OTOH everyone wants a talking puppy?)

> we can't understand lions because lions are kinda stupid.

Lions understand each other well enough to hunt as a coordinated pack.

> we haven't researched them enough.

I don't think you or I know much about the current state of Lion research. This statement is meaningless confabulation.

> Lions understand each other well enough to hunt as a coordinated pack.

This has no bearing to what I said. We can't understand lions because they are dumb. Sure they are smart enough to hunt in a pack.

My point was that lions communicate with each other using crude ways. They are not secretly intelligent or something

> We can't understand lions because they are dumb.

Non-sequitur, unsupported conslusion.