...but only to the degree that one can understand the "intended" meaning.
There are two ways I know to express truth. The one you mentioned as mathmatics but this can be expanded to include experimental results. We can grasp truth as science but this truth is severely limited because our knowledge is severely restricted.
There is another way to groke truth and thayt is through metaphysics. No language embraces metaphysics today but, I beliueve, ancient languages actually did. Computer languages come close and the directions for new electronic devices approach this level of truth but the problem is these directyions are incomprehensible to normal people and there's little value to "truth" when it concerns only the means by which to operate a sony blu-ray.
Truth can be shared in our language only by stringent sharing of definitions and premises. It can be shared mostly by lovers or specialists speaking the same language. Even this language can be deconstucted to some extent.
The one thing we all share today is confusion and were it not for the metaphysics of science this confusion would permeate all human activity rather than merely its bulk. I'm beginning to think perhaps the problem with new ideas is that their acceptance would shake peoples' belief that we aren't speaking a confused language. People feel comfortable with a status quo that puts us at the pinnacle of creation and relegates all sorts of "outsiders" to no better than lesser creatures or inanimate objects. They don't want to look in an animals eyes and see it looking back. They don't want to be responsible so they cling to the status quo like a piece of drift wood in the middle of the ocean. We are comfortable with our gods and omniscience and don't want to have to answer even to ourselves. Hence there can be no truth most of the time and the status quo is firmly entrenched now more than ever before.