yeah. truth could exist as a property, a relation, a mathematical function etc and if those count as things then it would seem likely that truth is a thing.

(we have the concept of TRUTH so it must exist as a concept at the very least)

there are indeed limits on the utility of conceptual analysis.

if we are looking at claims about the nature of the natural world then once we have done conceptual analysis to delineate the conditions under which the concept applies (or the statement / thought is true) then we have to turn to empirical investigation of the world in order to assess whether those conditions obtain.

arguments...

may be about more than the state of the natural world, however. in those cases conceptual analysis would seem to play a particularly important role in unearthing contradictions (ie is it possible for omni-god to exist? if not then what sort of thing would it be possible for god to be?).

what do you mean when you say truth 'transcends' language?

do you mean to say that if there was no language then there would still be truths? what if there was no language and there was no thought? what is it that we are to assess for truth or falsity?