The more of linguistic philosophy I read the more paranoid and scared I become. I feel that my language and the linguistic community I exist is undermining my own mental sovereignty and agency. If what it is possible to talk about, what state of things it is possible to state and what counts as validation for any given claim is determined by the practices of a linguistic community then it seems that someone who is holey rejected from society may become holey unintelligible to the linguistic community, unable to even make sense of his own claim to personhood. Take the position of slavery. Couldn't a linguistic community deem that it is grammatically impossible to attribute personhood to a slave? How about conscious feeling? In some of the old court cases based on slavery, the subject of the case seems almost semantic. Whether, grammatically, a sentence with a subject that is slave can contain a statement of internal experience or an attribution of personhood, promise, kinship, etc. I am afraid I could be shunned from the language, made unintelligible and nonsensical, or that I may be unable to understand the claims of someone already made unintelligible in such a way.

Are you schizophrenic?

OP somewhat has a point, but seems to be moving towards a strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is pretty contentious to put it nicely.

>>1
in your case, there may be a way to be understood. for example, if it is grammatically impossible to attribute personhood to a slave, then you must rely on using ostensive definitions to remain comprehensible to the receiver. that is, one might show that a slave has personhood (even though this is impossible to do so grammatically) by having a slave perform acts that one would ordinarily attribute to personhood. if the receiver understands the intention, then one can discuss about the slave being a person while remaining comprehensible, even though the grammar of the language prevents this from occurring.