Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

   More important question is: can you pronounce ... all [signs of truth]?
   And if you cannot pronounce truth, what other ways can you not perceive
   or produce it.

   interesting considerations. interpretation slightly varying on multiple
   meanings for pronounce, saying vs. declaring.
   instead of copying the examples again, an ironic or emblematic
   representation of "truth" as a sign of truth ["truth"], self-conscious
   in its structural connection to all other signs as a concept, then
   could evaluate any sign, though also all signage standing-in for this
   concept, in terms of the larger integrated evaluation and its
   accounting... (unbelievable perhaps though am not trying to be
   abstract). such that:
        ["truth"] --->  A=A (1)
   in this way, any language with a sign representing truth could likewise
   be grounded in 1=1 evaluation (this perhaps more universal as number
   though as language (A) more insightful in terms of signage). e.g:
        [αλήθεια] --->  1 (T)
        [真実] --->  1 (T)
        [ความจริง] --->  1 (T)

   that is, all various 'signage of truth' would be grounded in an
   empirical evaluation of truth (such as A=A) whereby the absolute truth
   (1) would be referenced as a basis for determining truth (T), noting
   that my notation here is arbitrary and shifting, trying to describe it.
   thus if 'observation of truth' is grounded, it would tend towards 1,
   whereas if based on pseudo-truth and errored relativistic beliefs,
   where truth is minor and set within prevailing uncorrected falsity,
   this ungrounded observation could tend towards falsity instead (0),
   even while it references the same 'sign of truth', the sign believed to
   automatically verify an inaccurate 'absolute condition' via
   reading/writing its sign. in other words, the reference to the word
   ["truth"] is deemed the totality of accounting for truth of an
   observation, via 'true belief' that is not accounted for beyond the
   sign and binary onesided evaluations that assume the error-reliant
   observer is infallible; corrupt POV.
        [αλήθεια] --->  pT (0)
        [真実] --->  pT (0)
        [ความจริง] --->  pT (0)

   in this way -ungrounded observations- which simply reference the 'sign
   of truth' could, in their reliance on relativistic frameworks not
   checked against other empirical observations beyond their given
   protected boundary or parameters, then have their viewpoint carry only
   a minor truth (say 1% grounded truth amidst reliance on much larger
   falsity) yet in binary terms be assumed 'absolutely true' (1) which is
   what ideology affords- a protected boundary that edits truth to fit a
   given model, yet the more this occurs, the less real it becomes as a
   viewpoint of the world outside this bubble condition.
   in other words, grounded error-corrected observation of empirical truth
   tends towards 1, ungrounded error-reliant and uncorrected observation
   of relativistic pseudo-truth tends towards 0 (though can assume to
   equate with 1 via binary ideology) -- such that both these observers
   could reference the same sign of truth ["truth"] and yet one observer
   could be situated in an accurate and realistic empirical model and the
   other in a virtual, warped, twisted and surreal model that is largely a
   false perspective, false consciousness, etc.
        relativistic pT (0)  <---  ["truth"]  --->  (1) empirical truth
   and that everyday language in linear exchanges, not referencing a
   common model of truth and verifying accuracy of observations, of claims
   and statements and beliefs, actually by default tends towards falsity
   (0) and nothingness, in terms of empirical awareness. instead
   >nothingness< is that is shared as the common viewpoint. truth having
   been removed from the center of cultural knowledge and awareness via
   relativism and binary ideology. so basically everything exists in this
   far-left scenario (above) by default, to even include mathematics
   (psychology of mathematicians, the basis for their analyses in terms of
   logical reasoning, errors of observers), coding, programming,
   communication, language, economics, and onward to everything. it is all
   ungrounded belief, to greater/lesser extents, unless subsets of
   empirical truth have been achieved otherwise - yet not at the scale of
   existing government, the state, else people would be able to deal with
   the situations that exist instead of silence, passivity, and incapacity
   to question and work-through what is going on, though there is also
   active hostility to exactly such _behavior, so the animal trainers make
   sure humans remain the apes
   so grounded and ungrounded observations influence and effect whether a
   sign maps into structures of empirical truth or relativistic falsity,
   and this relates to parameters, boundaries, dimensions evaluated, and
   the internal processing of the observer, externalized, as a
   decision-making entity that then interacts with others and various
   tools, using this operating system or ruleset for guidance, navigation
   i keep thinking of the Voyager spacecraft gold-record in this regard,
   the challenges of interpretation this situation involves, especially
   the further it gets outside of a shared framework- which is how the
   universality of numbers seem to establish the basic for language
   outside the variability of signs, assumably recognizable beyond a given
   threshold of development, say for space-venturing civilizations
   THE GOLDEN RECORD
   [1]http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/goldenrec.html
   it would be pretty hilarious if the aliens could not figure out what
   the various symbolic language was meant to equate with due to some
   hidden relativistic bias and get future feedback on such an inherent
   limit in existing approaches to communication. such that a gap may
   exist between what is communicated and what is believed communicated.
   the larger issue involved in the grounding of truth within signs,
   including the 'signs of truth' that seek to represent it as a concept,
   is that it is a general condition of linear language that repeats
   itself endlessly, [such] [that] [every] [word] [and] [idea] [exist]
   [in] [this] [shared] [existential] [condition] and rely on particular
   interpretation, to ~account for the truth, however perceived and
   subsequently evaluated.
   thus your question of the limits to seeing, saying, conveying this
   truth, what if there is a boundary and it seems the default condition,
   that such a boundary exists, perhaps even an extreme limit upon
   observation of the truth as it exists, versus as it is perceived and-or
   believed to exist in contingent modeling used in day-to-day existence,
   trapped within a style of language, styles of knowing, ways of being
   that could be established via these same parameters and boundaries as a
   structure, the basis for given observations, specific contexts that
   make each observer unique (the relativistic context) which can be an
   asset if grounded and integrated into other views of the same events,
   versus blocking them out, censoring reality to fit a given parameter
   that itself may only be partially accurate, etc.
   in this way the reference to ["truth"] is not only how this concept is
   referenced by each individual observer (or ignored by computers via
   their modeling of signs instead as if truth), it is also how this
   conceptualization exists as an infrastructure within all other signs
   and symbols and events, as these are calculated, processed, accounted
   for within observational frameworks. in other words a substructure of
   this truth, within each and every sign and their combination and
   permutations resulting in various arrangements of meaning, this in a
   perspectival (relative->empirical) framework akin to geometric modeling
   (Plato: Timaeus), such as the nesting of platonic solids or The
   Architecture of Molecules, though "forms" are ideas, commonly
   referenced via various viewpoints (facets) and ~dimensions, to model
   and accurately account for, if not determine, things-in-themselves as
   concepts map into the world and are repeated and transformed
   in this way, the [sign] is like the facade of a billboard, a large
   outdoor wood and metal canvas used for graphic advertisement, mainly
   for automobile transportation- getting eyeballs to track to the
   available marketable space between the world of civilization and the
   empty sky. what is relevant about this [signage] is that the sign
   itself is held up by a hidden armature that is in the background, while
   the message is in the foreground. and yet this hidden armature is its
   physicality, its basis for how it is positioned in space-time and also
   literally its grounding in the material world, such that a lightning
   strike on the armature would be sent back into earth via ground wire if
   atop a building otherwise constructed in the ground as a self-contained
   billboard, i.e. the various typology of how buildings can exist
   in this context of the [billboard], as with any sign, its [truth] may
   be equated with the signage itself, as a surface-level evaluation and
   thus interpretation not extended beyond this parameter to account for
   its existence. thus the image or sign may equate with its truth. yet to
   understand the billboard signage in depth would require understanding
   something about advertising and real estate, marketing, semiotics
   perhaps, psychology, economics, whatever themes or industries or
   business models may be referenced, icons, as these relate to how
   someone perceives this signage, pattern-matches their dimensional
   awareness into or onto that framework of the [sign], and thus how
   'truth' is determined or grounded, in what context, how much it relies
   on assumptions in pT or goes beyond these, as this relates to
   boundaries and parameters and thresholds of observers and knowledge and
   beliefs. the larger truth, in other words, may exist outside the
   literal frame of the [sign], its "truth" may go into the hidden
   armature, here an analogy and-or metaphor, that structures and creates
   the informational model that is being mediated, evaluated, parsed,
   ~computed and processed via observers in such a sign-based relation,
   that as a medium may actually involve connecting two remote observers
   in a hidden or delayed mode of exchange, symbolic or otherwise
   (economic, political, social, cultural, informational), including
   demographic, statistical, ideological, biased, to the point that
   pavlovian or skinnerian techniques of salivation may be the basis for
   processing, more than deep intellectual consideration
   so if it is possible to withstand further investigation into this, it
   would then be to consider [signs] of language in these terms, whereby
   their "truth" may exist as this hidden armature that connects into
   these other hidden yet interconnected dimensions, a substructure or
   infrastructure of signage or a substructural level of language and-or
   patterning, and that this is essentially the scaffolding of structure
   that relates to 'logical reasoning' that connects various ideas and
   concepts in their 'shared truth' beyond given boundaries that may or
   may not be accounted for within a given observation. the truth of the
   [sign] could be interpreted just as its image, yet its "truth" as a
   ["sign"] involves more than a pattern-match with a preconceived notion
   that is unaccounted for in its empirical existence, by default. that
   would require getting into its armature, its meaning yet also its
   modeling and *conceptualization*, which is necessarily empirical in
   that the nature of perspective allows an N-dimensional observation, via
   shared observation, panoptic seemingly, to evaluate every facet and
   angle and vertex in its accuracy (A=A) and thus get to the
   thing-in-itself versus remaining trapped in a false perspective of
   things as they are perceived as [signs], never going beyond the
   boundary to get at the truth that validates them as ["signs"] in terms
   of ideas, and this is proposed to be requiring nonlinear modeling,
   stopping this linear feed of endless unique perspective, to reference
   the same event or situation (x) via various grounded perspectives, than
   create new unconnected perspectives, 'reinventing the sign' each time
   it is observed or referenced (x..n) (else perhaps x^n) (unsure how to
   denote this at the moment)
   so there is a correlation between this condition, where [signs] are not
   similarly referenced, and existing technology: HTML or hypertext markup
   language. the Project Xanadu approach Ted Nelson invented was not
   followed. [0] if understanding correctly, it was a common reference for
   each sign, such that each word would be referenced to a centralized
   model, a single concept, such that typing this would involve an
   invisible armature that would map back towards a central model of the
   same information, as if a weaving of data outward from the core. each
   [sign] would reference an original, as with Plato and original forms,
   versus copies and copies of copies (ideology). thus the inherent
   structure of language would be part of the information modeling,
   online. the entire internet would be organizable as content this way,
   if these concepts could then be the basis for modeling and categorizing
   and relating to ideas, and communicating. or so that is the potential
   for such an approach. instead, every [sign] remains as a [sign], yet
   does not reference a common, accountable ["sign"] that can be used to
   account for its truth, as an idea and concept. friction-free and
   free-floating, language untethered from its accounting in truth, as if
   the [word] in and of itself is truth, versus referencing it, a
   representation that provides a pathway that grounds with reality
   in this way, the programming conventions themselves can become limits
   to observation and perception and relation to information and data
   modeling that becomes surface-based, shallow or hollowed out in terms
   of issues of representation, what is accounted for and what exists and
   can be exploited in terms of belief. and by default, it is proposed,
   due to this lack of accounting for the scaffolding and hidden armature
   that empirical truth involves, the relativistic approach instead takes
   over and exists in an ungrounded condition at this superficial level of
   bounded, limited, finite interpretation trapped within dynamics mostly
   defined by psychology of observers who, most, are reliant on biased and
   onesided binary evaluations by default, and entire populations are
   trained this way, in terms of what they see and how they convey this,
   what is sayable versus requiring self or other censorship-- and at the
   core is fear of ideas, fear of truth, the fear that losing these
   protective parameters will result in loss of self, loss of ego (yes),
   loss of infallibility (yes), loss of certitude (yes), and thus it is a
   different worldview, like Copernican and Galilean, though it involves
   fundamental gains: grounding, neutralizing bias, clarity of
   observation, access to truth beyond arbitrary boundaries, the capacity
   to reason, realization of service to truth as beneficent, etc. though
   instead, as if brainwashed by the ideological nanny-state, the fear of
   unfettered truth: we cannot handle the truth, therefore... the false
   perspective and its bliss. draw within the lines. everything will be
   ok. just take your pills. pre-order your casket...
   [0]  Project Xanadu - Ted Nelson
   [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu
    (reference test for wordwrap) - 78 character monospaced Courier New
   font
    XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
   XX XX XX
    XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
   XX XX XX
   izod-lacoste, vans, sexwax
   ∄ ‱ ∃

References

   1. http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/goldenrec.html
   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu