Here's why:
* Early languages were likely localized: The earliest human languages likely developed in small groups and were highly localized. They didn't have the widespread usage to be considered "universal."
* No definitive evidence: We don't have concrete evidence about the earliest languages. Linguistic reconstruction is a complex process, and even with the best methods, we cannot be certain about the precise origin and spread of any language.
* Language constantly evolves: Languages are dynamic systems that change and evolve over time. It's challenging to pinpoint a specific point in history when a language became "universal" because language usage and influence are always shifting.
Instead of a "first" universal language, consider these points:
* Proto-languages: Linguists often refer to "proto-languages," which are hypothetical ancestor languages from which modern languages are believed to have descended. For example, Proto-Indo-European is a reconstructed language believed to be the ancestor of many European and Asian languages.
* Regional languages with influence: Throughout history, certain languages have gained significant influence in specific regions or eras, such as Latin in the Roman Empire or Arabic in the Middle Ages. However, they were not truly "universal" in the sense of being spoken by everyone.
* Modern universal language aspirations: Today, languages like English and Mandarin Chinese have achieved a high level of global usage, particularly in commerce and international communication. However, they are still far from being universally understood.
In summary, the concept of a "first" universal language is a complex and debatable topic. While we can explore the evolution of languages and the influence of various languages throughout history, it's unlikely to find a definitive answer to this question.