First some linguistic theory background.
Noam Chomsky has hypothesized that language developed internally to facilitate certain aspects of human cognition. According to Chomsky's hypothesis, human ability to articulate language audibly for communication appeared much later. Chomsky claims that the rather sudden emergence of language as communication points to the longer evolution of this internal language as an underpinning of human cognition.
Further, Chomsky holds that this evolution of language results from an "organ" in the human mind, which evolved to provide the facility of language. That is why a child of 18 months can begin to speak, despite rather sparse informational language context.
This all suggests that human cognition is tied intimately to language, and that human language is a narrower facility than might otherwise be thought.
Therefore, the limits of human language, generally, almost certainly limits your cognition, perception of the world, and capacity to cognitively model reality.
There are, however, other cognitive systems than language. The system that allows temporal spatial imaging, for example. Another example is the visual system that perceives color, which is almost certainly much older than the human cognitive system, evolutionarily speaking. Therefore, even prior to having the capacity of speech, our evolutionary ancestors could perceive blue, even without a word for it. However, they lacked the capacity to imbue the perception with meaning beyond the drives that color perceptions trigger, such as eating ripe fruit.
Does this mean that they really did not see what we call "blue"? That is an interesting point for further discussion.