But weren't these things new precisely because the only way to describe them was using already existing words? If the telephone wasn't a new thing, why didn't we have a word for it yet?
Also, I think you are undervaluing the worth of that discovering a use for some combination of things that have existed for ages.
I think that even can be true if that combination, in hindsight, looks like a simple continuation of existing developments. A cride analogy: in hindsight, many problems appear to be in P, while they actually are NP-complete.
However any new idea always has multiple origins. The combination may be novel but there are always others iterating on the same problem at the same time (remember Leibniz and Newton? Or Marconi and Tesla? Or everyone else?).
The only reason you think they are unique is because of success bias. You only remember the winners. But just because someone won - it does not follow that they were unique or the best. It just means they just happened to win.
Also, I think you are undervaluing the worth of that discovering a use for some combination of things that have existed for ages.
I think that even can be true if that combination, in hindsight, looks like a simple continuation of existing developments. A cride analogy: in hindsight, many problems appear to be in P, while they actually are NP-complete.