Amusing anecdote: This was the “event” I read about when I was fairly young, that, due to either being poorly worded, or my misreading, or a combination of both, led to my believing that Latin was an artificial language, constructed by the Church for the purpose of having an unchanging language in which to write religious documents. My misunderstanding was strengthened by the fact that, as far as I knew, Latin was *only *used for religious, legal, and medical purposes. Latin had stopped being a required subject taught in public schools before I was of school age, so I didn’t know any better.
Fortunately, my misconception was finally corrected … some time in my 30s (here on the Dope, in fact). I was briefly embarrassed, but more grateful that my ignorance had been successfully fought 
I had a similar belief about Sanskrit - because I misunderstood what “synthetic” meant in terms of grammar Synthetic language - Wikipedia - it doesn’t mean “artificial.” Latin is more synthetic than English - so maybe that was part of your confusion as well.
As I approached the subject via the very readable Flutes of Fire I knew from the start that polysynthetic languages weren’t artificial and are not uncommon globally, including Mayan languages. MrsRico and I attended one of many schools in Guatemala where Spanish and Mayan languages were taught, often to foreign missionaries and medics for their dealings with locals. How many of those foreigners learning polysynthetic local tongues twisted their logical processes to adapt?
Recently realized that, 250 years ago, it was possible to read all the English Language literature then in print. It shed a new light on the willingness of educated people to learn Latin and Greek and read Latin and Greek literature.
Ah, yeah, it’s entirely possible that the original article I read used the term “synthetic”. Alas, it was a print source, not online, and so long ago that I can’t even remember the name of the source. But misunderstanding the usage of that word would explain a lot.
You think it was possible for one person to read all English language books in 1770? Not even remotely, even in several lifetimes.
Where are you getting your figures from?
You were righter than you knew. Quite apart from “synthetic” as the typology of its grammar, Classical Sanskrit also had a semi-artificial dimension as a literary language, the way grammarians and literati built elaborate structures with it that were far removed from how anybody talked. There developed high diglossia in ancient India as Prakrit and Classical Sanskrit diverged from their common roots in Vedic Sanskrit.
I know this is a bit of a sidetrack from the OP, but is this actually possible in today’s age of media globalization and internet connectivity? I have heard that languages are continuing to evolve as fast as ever (maybe faster?), but is it likely for similar dialects such as the various dialects of English to actually diverge to the point where they could be mutually unintelligible, or would they tend to evolve in tandem and remain intelligible? I can see how certain regions might still develop slang, but it would be pretty amazing to me if, say, the different regions developed different words for “hand”, “food”, “computer” etc. that others might not be able to understand.
Even now- I’m not sure where you are, but let’s say Atlanta- are you sure you can understand someone from Glasgow without difficulty? Barnsley? New Orleans? Calcutta?
The story Chronos discussed was Orion Shall Rise by Poul Anderson, if I’m not mistaken. In that, civilization fell and was back on the rise. So it’s plausible that there’d be multiple languages descendant from English in that time.