An inadequate understanding of reality?...I THINK NOT!!!

I may be very opinionated in the area of whether or not humans have an accurate understanding of reality, but I think I can prove my point with a detailed, 8th grade paragraph.
First off, I have come to the conclusion that language is not able to describe an object accurately because each word we use is automatically casting an object into a certain known realm, ie: categorizing it. In the poem "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood, she goes on to try and describe "toast" with words. Obviously this is inevitably pointless because she uses examples of how words are unable to capture the "essence" of toast. This is not the purpose of the text; it is to convey to the reader that toast is whatever they want it to be, which always comes back to that terrible meaningless word "thing". When eventually the Snowman says "Forget it"..."Let's try again", and goes on to describe it as a pointless invention from the dark ages and other random things, the author is just being a rebel. This is complete idiocy because if they are trying to prove that humans have an inadequate understanding of reality, this author failed miserably. They forget that the categories into which we place objects vary in specificity depending on the word used. What they did prove is that words eventually become "thing". They forgot that the human mind is virtually limitless. We don't need words. Pictures will do fine; if they are blind, create an object out of a malliable material that closely represents whatever idea you are trying to convey. This eliminates the meaninglessness of words like "thing", "object", "stuff", and "material". The list could go on and on, but humans do have the capacity to experience and understand reality, even if something is just a copy.