You appear to want to play the chicken and egg game and look for "ultimate stuff" to be called "objective reality". Why ? Maybe because what we call "cognition" feels comfortable with a causal chain argument, even though "causality" and "time" are recognized in both physics and philosophy as psychological constructs.
As for your "evidence of existence" argument. How is your assumption of an objective reality from whence all comes
any different from a theistic argument for a god which also "cannot be described
accurately". Note the denial of language as description here. Both gods
and ultimate stuff
can be considered functional cognitive constructs.
IMO there are two possible ways to go with respect to language.
Either (1)we deflate language as (just) a complex form of communicative behavior in our species or (2) we assign language to the role of a creative agent with respect to a transient constructed species specific reality. I have sympathy for the first, but I am drawn to the second.
I do not treat my opinions as "facts" in your lay sense of the word. I treat them as informed
statements about the latest views of language and cognition supported by other thinkers in the field.
As for this pseudo-handwringing over name calling of which you are the acknowleged arch-offender, its about time you stopped hiding behind it as excuse for doing a bit of research outside your comfort zone. Most of us acknowledge your quite interesting historical research which you eagerly exposite at the drop of a hat, but philosophy is another ball game irrespective of your rather childish attempt at denigration of its status by use of the term "pop-star".