IN RESPONSE TO ALL WHO POSTED:
Okay, since everyone has been pulled into the Schadenfreude vortex, I'll try a different tack. Let's define "vrooshoom" as a word meaning "I just saw a UFO fly low overhead, hover a moment, then take off with seemingly impossible speed." Two people could meet, a UFO could fly low overhead while one of the people was bent down tying his shoes, hear a sound, look up too late to see it, and say "what happened?" The other could then reply "vrooshoom" (pronounced: v'REW-shOOM, a short vee sound, a sound like the English word "rue", a sound like the English word "shoe", terminating in an "emm" sound, two syllables total).
As far as I know, no language has a word that means the same as "vrooshoom". Does that matter? Should we hijack a thread to discuss words that exist in one language but which have no single-word translation in another? Did you know that German has no word for "sorry"? As in, you bump into someone, and say "sorry", but if you bumped into someone whom you know understands only German, and wanted to express the same sentiment, you'd say something like "Es tut mir leid" or "Ich bitte um Entschuldigung", meaning in the first place "It does me sorrow", and in the second, "I plead about (for your) pardon." or some such thing.
You could simply say "Entschuldigung," or " 'schuldigung," but that means "pardon," not "I'm sorry" or just "sorry". The notion that English has no word (before borrowing "Schadenfreude", which properly should be capitalized, as the first letter of all German nouns (excl. pronouns) are,) for the concept is not significant, the fact is even without Schadenfreude, you could express the concept in English, just not as compactly. You could say, "The pain and/or humiliation brought joy at the misfortune." You could pare this sentence down further, but the point is not that you can't express what Schadenfreude is in English. You can, it just takes more than 4 syllables. Of course, if you can mimic Nelson's hyena-like laugh from "The Simpsons", saying "HAA ha!" you can express the sentiment in only two, and that's English, thank you very much.
But that all is beside the point. The notion of nouns and verbs is besides point. Nouns are words corresponding to objects, verbs are words corresponding to actions. Although language is artificial, sure, the notion of nouns and verbs is fairly universal, most languages have, I think, as a minimum, no matter how primitive, something akin to nouns and something akin verbs if it can be used to express symbolic thought from one being or entity to another. In forming a first, primary language by creatures intelligent enough to form one, but who don't have one yet, they need to be able to say things like "Look out, a Leopard is chasing you!" eventually.
"Look out!" is enough for immediate threats, but you eventually need to be able to warn about things that are far away, in place or time. For example, if a family of humans with no language has parents who want to warn kids about bears, they need to be able to convey the concept of "bear" without necessarily having one handy. Same goes for fire, rushing water, lightning, poisonous plants, the edges of cliffs, sharks, falling rocks, excessive sunlight, and of course, the bane of all primitive societies, high fructose corn syrup.
If a member of your tribe is getting ready to set out to the other side of the river, and the only warning you can give is "Look out!" he might suddenly duck, or react to whatever default fear he might have. You shout "look out!" and he assumes a snake is about to bite him. He whirls around, and NO snake. He thinks you are pulling his leg, but what you meant was "look out when you get to the water because no one of us has invented swimming yet, so if you fall in you're screwed! Also, sharks." Obviously, more than just a single interjection is required. Nouns to identify objects, (even if you don't have the word "noun" or an equivalent, you still need nouns) and verbs to identify actions. "Snake in hole" is useful, so I think it can be shown prepositions are handy. Even if they're not single individual words, a full-featured basic language needs to allow its users interchange of useful information. If you don't want to have verbs, but want the nouns to carry both identification of an object information, AND action information, you're going to need a separate noun for every object, AND conceivable action, and that would mean that the language would have impossibly many symbols. You'd need words for snakeslithers, snakecoils, snakeswims, snakebites (the action, not the resulting puncture wounds), snakeeats, snakeshedsskin, snakefalls, snakeclimbs, snakehangs, snakehatches, snakeexiststwoheadedly, snakeexistswithspots, snakeexistsandisgreen, snakeexistsandisbrown, snakehasredandblackandwhitestripes, snakespits, snakerattles, snakemates, snakestarves, snakeiscrushed, snakeiseaten, snakehisses, snakedies, and of course, snaketasty! The list goes on and on. That's a lot of nounverbs. Then if you want to converse about something else, like "tiger", you'll need a whole new collection, tigerstalks, tigerleaps, tigergrowls, etc. even if you are talking about the same action, such as "tigerdies". If "ssseaghr" is snakedies, you still need a completely separate word "ugurghea" for tigerdies. It would be infinitely more efficient, I don't think it can be contested, to have nouns and verbs be SEPARATE words. That way, you only need the word "dies" to express the passage from living to non-living states of living things.
Even if you have a language in which the subject (noun) and verb are combined into a single word, the words are still individual things. "Johnran to the store" means the same thing as "John ran to the store", in that you can combine any other noun with the "ran" to indicate someone else doing the same action. No matter how written or pronounced, the noun and verb are still basically separate, except maybe for a few fundamental verbs, like in Spanish where a pronoun can often be excluded because the form of the verb implies which pronoun is appropriate. But it still HAS pronouns and nouns, just the same.
So I don't think I'm getting ahead of myself when I suggest a language needs to have, as basic features, nouns and verbs, even if the language is not sophisticated enough to be able to discuss it in itself, it still needs to have basic features.
As for Helen Keller, she used Braille, as I understand it. Maybe studying how she communicated with others, I might find an answer to my original question. I am gratified by all the responses, I just wish we hadn't gotten sidetracked by Schadenfreude. The reason so many people love the idea, I think, is that German has a "single" word for it, and that German culture is what it is, having produced people like Friedrich Nietzsche, and all his often dismal philosophy, plus a mindset that allowed for the dubious "flowering" of one of the most fascist, repressive regimes in recent history, if not indeed in ALL of history.
I'm sorry, but I must dispel this notion, however. Schade means bad, and Freude means joy, in German. Schadenfreude is in fact, a COMPOUND WORD. German forms multiple words together into a single word whereas in other languages, (like English) they are typically kept separate. Take Fernsehapparat, for example. Seems like a long word... it is formed of the particles "fern" "seh" and "apparat". "Fern" means far, or distant, or remote; "seh" is a conjugation of "sehen," which means "to see" or "seeing" and "apparat" is a cognate of apparatus, it's a device. In other words, A "Fernsehapparat" is a TV set. Nowadays, I understand this term has been shortened, and just as "television set" or box has simply become "T.V." or just "TV". They now call it a "Fernseher".
Schadenfreude is "Bad joy" or "misfortune happiness". Bear in mind though, it's only a single word IN GERMAN. There are lots of long words in German, that we would consider multiple words, such as Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, winner of the 1999 longest German word award, (see http://german.about.com/library/blwort_long.htm) and many others.
In English, we would not consider these as single words, so neither should we care about Schadenfreude being a single word, because really it's two. Therefore, German does NOT in fact have a single word to represent the idea of "Schadenfreude" EITHER, when it comes right down to it. Not as WE define single words. Okay? Can we all collectively forget about Schadenfreude now?