[justonceokay]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that “truth” is a word, and therefore not “enough” be definition of not being a physical thing in the world. Without communication there can be no lies, so truth doesnt mean anything.

If by “truth” you mean more like Kants “the thing in itself”, then the problem there is we need abstraction. If I show you how to make an arrowhead, somehow I need to convey that you can follow the same process with your own piece of flint, and that they are both arrowheads. Without any language abstraction my arrowhead and your arrowhead are just two different rocks with no relation to each other.