Language utterly unsuitable to define reality

• If one were to ask whether the Loch Ness monster is real, it would naturally be understood as just the same question as whether the Loch Ness monster exists.
• 
  
•  If it is supposed to be a different question, is this due to simple stipulation, or can we make the difference intelligible
• 
  
• If we are forced to think of the world in terms of objects because of our cognitive makeup then it would be no surprise that our natural language forces us to describe the world in terms of objects. 
• And arguably some of the central features of natural languages do exactly that.
• It represents information in terms of subject and predicate, where the subject paradigmatically picks out an object and the predicate paradigmatically attributes a property to it. 
• If this is correct about natural language then it seems that natural language is utterly unsuitable to describe reality as it is in itself if the latter does not contain any objects at all. 

• But then, how are we to describe reality?
• Language It might be unsuitable since it carries with it too much baggage from our particular conceptual scheme. See (Burgess 2005) for a discussion. Or it might be unsuitable since various expressions in it are not precise enough, too context sensitive

How to understand the notion of ‘reality in itself’ is not at all clear, as is well known. It can't just mean: reality as it would be if we weren't in it. On this understanding it would simply be the world as it is except with no humans in it, which would in many of its grander features be just as it in fact is. But then what does it mean? 

Similar, but different, worries apply to those who rely on notions like ‘fundamental’, ‘substance’