It's so manifestly false, the only charitable assumption is that they're making an offbeat point. Perhaps it could be defended by simply defining 'everything' a

It's so manifestly false, the only charitable assumption is that they're making an offbeat point. Perhaps it could be defended by simply defining 'everything' as 'all propositional knowledge'. Or maybe you could say true 'communication' is only possible between people who already share the concepts they're communicating, in which case words are only a Kripke-esque pointers, excluding the obvious cases of purported difficulties communicating with words. A bit of a stretch perhaps. At a minimum, it's a tad gnomic without some expansion.