I don't know if by "we've conversing" you meant we are or we have been conversing. Those two possibilities are close enough to one another that substituting the wrong one will probably not cause a catastrophic failure, but perhaps you meant to use the pluperfect to imply that the conversation was done in some "drop the mic" moment that was completely lost on me.

Telephone is not a game of ambiguity, but of noisy communication. If you start with cat you might get bat at the end, but you wouldn't get feline. You could easily win at telephone by speaking the same meaningless statement repeatedly and you can lose at telephone with a grammatically correct statement which is nevertheless phonetically similar to some other statement. "Blue blue blue blue" is going to make it, "blue crew flew you" probably won't. A fault in transmission is fundamentally different from a syntax error, more analogous to a letter getting lost in the mail or a mistyped letter on the keyboard.

There is a fundamental difference between getting your point across and getting a point across that's similar enough to accomplish your goals.

Consider the following statements:

"I want you to feed my cat

"I want my cat fed"

"I want feed cat"

"You food cat"

"Cat food"

"Weird Dog Rice"

"seltsamer Hundereis"

I am certain you know what I mean in the first sentence. I would be amazed if you could deduce the meaning of the last without further clarification. Between these extremes there is some point where your compiler's heuristics fail, and likely long before that you start losing nuance and details. Natural language error tolerance has its limits.

Now consider the following javascript expressions:

for (let cat in catstofeed) {feedCat(cat)}

var i=1; while (i) { try { feedCat(catstofeed[i-1]); i = i+1; } catch (e) { i = 0;};

var i=0; while (i) { try { feedCat(catstofeed[i]); i = i+1; } catch (e) { i = 0;};

while (i) { try { feedCat(catstofeed[i]); i = i+1; } catch (e) { i = 0;};

If you substituted the second for the first, you'd accomplish what you were setting out to do. The third would lead to a wildly different result but is still valid. The final case is ambiguous, a smart compiler could guess the programmer intended for statement 2's functionality, but asking for clarification is the safer option.

You are right that trying to have a human conversation with only a few dozen words and a very limited sentence structure would be very difficult - a vast vocabulary and complicated grammar is a hard requirement for a natural language, and ambiguity is thus unavoidable. Dealing with such a high level of ambiguity is thus also a requirement of a natural language compiler, and such a compiler is beyond the capability of any existing silicon computer. But just because a language has more words and more valid expressions does not fundamentally change what it is, any more than adding more processing power to a computer eventually makes it stop being a computer.

If you wanted to make a programming language with 50000 keywords and an extremely forgiving syntax, you could do so. It would be extremely impractical for programming a current computer, which is only capable of a few distinct operations and thus has no need for nuance, but it would still work, and damn wouldn't it be great at self documenting.

That's because that's not what I said nor what I meant.