Was wondering about the thought and language question.
One way of restating it would be - for any given language, is there a mind that corresponds to it at the surface level or more deeply?
Or is language itself merely at the surface existing in the thought-aether of enabling meta-language?
How do we translate?
Are there metalinguistic concepts?
Within our own language, which is, for me, American English, we’ve agreed to certain broad meanings of words that depend on broad descriptions of actions (this has to do with nouns and verbs, primarily.) We’ve also developed genders and tenses, adjectives and adverbs, phrases and clauses, tonality and intonation, and structure, all of which refine those nouns and verbs. But the meanings are still broad. Learning a foreign language within our own language group, which, for English is a sub-set of the Germanic, which is itself a branch of the Indo-European language family, can be difficult–mainly because we’re American rather than French, for example. French is yet another branch of the Indo-European language family.
That said, while individuals speaking a given language can understand each other in a broad sense, our individuality means we only understand each other to a certain degree. This can sometimes be shallow, sometimes deep. It can change from person to person.
I’m not sure what you mean by, “How do we translate?”
As for metalinguistic concepts, again, I’m not sure what you mean. There have been instances where events have occurred that appear in the languages and writings of many different peoples. The “Gilgamesh Epic” and the Biblical story of Noah is very a famous one–they both describe a great flood. The “Iliad” is said to incorporate true events from a more ancient past. These are memories of life-changing events the writers didn’t themselves experience. Carl Jung called them the ‘collective unconscious’–memories stored from the past that have influenced the ‘present.’
There are ‘universal’ symbols in art no matter what language is spoken–as long as the spoken language is within the same group. Persian art has meaning to Indo-Iranian language speakers–even though Indo-Iranian is a part of the Aryan branch of the Indo-European Family.
I’m sure I’ve written more than you ever wanted to know about language, but I replied to your op as I did to show one aspect of the difficulty of your questions. 
I’ll start explaining myself here.
When I posit ‘How do we translate?’ the question I’m circling is what are the sub-personal enabling factors of language use that need to be considered in order that we can truly say that the same concept is shared by two different contextualised expressions. What I’m talking about is not meta-language as higher order linguistic form in use, but the aether from which instantiated languages form and itself dependent for its existence upon certain psychological matters of fact. This is why the cue came from the thought / language thread - one possible way that thought could precede language would be if thought itself had its own grammar and structure from which language took their form but is not identical with its origin.
So, the possibility of translation is dependent on the existence of the metalanguage as it ensures the possibility of correct translation (through some kind of unity of thought) and translation occurs through the translation out of and then back into another language - it moves through the aether.
Thus, a metalinguistic concept would be one that supersedes its own linguistic expression, or inherently denies any possibility of full linguistic expression, whilst remaining open to all possible users of language.
So it’s a kind of non-linguistic intersubjectivity.
Its about the psychology of language use; is the mind deeply embedded within its own linguistic tradition or does it fundamentally (if not experientially) stand apart?
I believe thought is not necessarily in spoken language.
For example, one might know the meaning of a word simply by inference due to context. Or one might know what they mean but not be able to find the word for it.
But whether this thought is universally shared is debatable. I would expect thought to be more similar amongst like-minded individuals who speak any language, but still have similarities with any other individuals. Most people can make sense of each other eventually, though obviously there are “defects” where this at least seems to be not possible.
I would also expect thought to be influenced by the languages you speak - in a kind of reciprocal interplay. This would lead one to probably have more in common, with regard to thought, with someone who speaks the same languages - particularly if they grew up in similar places for similar amounts of times at roughly the same times.
Depending on where and when you learn communication, your thoughts are going to tend towards particular ways. Certain classifications or types of classifications are going to become more familiar to you - for example inuits have loads of names for snow. The way in which you learn distinctions is going to be refined in different ways, in both language and thought.
Going to start at the end.
Given the relationship you’ve outlined, that in some sense language allows for divergent paths of the mind, what enables us to interpret others without necessarily extrapolating from our own encoded viewpoint a universal position?
It’s not necessarily that thought itself is universal or has a universal form, though if it is distinct from language AND logical it must follow so biologically generalised laws, but merely that the capacities of thought are of a universal origin and that the capacities themselves play some shaping role. If that makes sense.
Are you asking, “Does thought influence language, or does language influence thought?” From what I’ve learned, it’s a bit of both. I’ve mentioned collective memories of events that influenced ancient literature and, probably, ancient life. I’ve mentioned ‘universal symbology’ within language groups. It takes thousands of years for a meme to become embedded in the brain, so we have no idea how current memes will be internalized and/or how they’ll affect future lives/thoughts/language.
Did you mean “capacities of thought,” "capacities for thought or the’capability to think?’ We’re all born capable of thinking, even if it’s at a primitive level, but that’s a neurological function rather than a linguistic one.
No I’m not as that question is to miss the point. Without first defining what we mean by thought or language the question doesn’t make sense, or if one posits the existence of a meta-language whilst leaving it relatively nebulous as a concept then it already a given that they exist in a relationship of interdependence and mutual development.
I meant capacities of thought. Which is why I wrote capacities of thought.
By capacities I do not mean that human capacity for thought, but the capacities of thought itself and what we can do with it. The distinction is important, the former implies a universality of mind, the latter implies a universality of potentialities. All thought shares the same grounds, though some of us explore that given land more creatively.
Again I will refer to translation and interpretation. Interpretation being a more mundane act of translation. Translation understood here in common parlance terms. When we translate, we translate a ‘meaning’ rather than words, this is the difference between Walter Kaufmann’s English versions of Nietzsche and running a text through google translate. What enables us to do this or, possibly, what enables to asses that we have done this correctly? One possible answer is that we translate through different linguistic forms through an aether, a non-linguistic meta-language, a language of thought which is also the source of our true self expression - where every linguistic expression is necessarily a minor act of translation,
There is no such animal as meta anything. There are only extensions of what we experience. Language appears to me to be such an extension–an evolving of awareness into types of communication. It conveys; it does not translate. It is organic and dynamic, not static. To see language as something that can be logically defined is to be blind to its preverbal or prewritten underpinnings where the heart of meanings and values lie.
If there’s no ‘meta-’ anything, how come we have ‘metaphysics?’
Metaphysics is a name given too often to abstract speculation. I’m not into God of the gaps or claiming ineffable solutions to problems once we have arrived at the borders of our thinking. Idealism is a prod, not a final end. Metaphysics is valid if it is an extension of personal experience. And personal experience does not have the limitations many metaphysicians impose on it.
I guess I was really only commenting on how often the prefix ‘meta,’ meaning ‘all encompassing,’ is used around ILP–the latest was ‘meta-caveat.’ Is this philosophical jargon?
Can’t y’all say what you mean and mean what you say without the use of jargon?
The US has a law against the use of jargon when communicated with the public. Aren’t we all trying to communicate? Then, by damn, can’t we all use plain English?
Agree, Liz.
Meta is a catchprase that says more about preferences than explanations. , which is why I find it suspect and do tell you what it means for me. Meta does not mean all encompassing; it means what lies beyond. “Metaphysics” was the book on Aristotle’s book shelf next to Physics. IMHO, that’s where and what it ought to mean.
It’s fairly standard these days. It means something that refers to its own category, an X about X - in IT you have metadata (data about data), in psychology you have metaemotions - the emotions that your emotions bring up. Metaphysics is an historical accident, though, it’s not the physics of physics.
I’m all for plain English. But “metalanguage” isn’t really a jargon term, or anyone showing off, it’s a standard technical term in the field of linguistics. And this is the linguistics board. I really don’t see the problem.
In case you are interested:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalanguage
There’s no problem, I’m just not familiar with the term–I’ve been a gym mom for too long, I suppose.
Please correct me if I still don’t understand, but isn’t the OP asking for a language about language? Didn’t the wiki article say there already is and we really use it every day?
Isn’t ‘jargon’ used to define technical language, or professional language, that’s really only understood by a given group of people?
When I write on these boards, I must use plain language because I’m not familiar with current ‘buzz words’ or labels–I wish I were–it would probably shorten my posts and the time it takes for me to write them. But, thank you and Ier, I’ve learned some new things today, which is why I’m here.