Can anything be described by describing what it is not? For example, a dog can be described as all that is not a dog. "All crows are black": all things that are not black are not a crow but not all things that are black are crows.
From a different mathematical point of view, for any given thing, there are more things it is not than there are sentences to describe them.
Not every real number can actually be described in language, there are more of them than there are formulas or sentences. From there, we certainly can't describe all of the real numbers that are not his specific one, much less all the things other than real numbers...
So, you may be able to select a item from a set, and then negate that selection. But you surely can't build up any kind of real description of an item by stating what it is not.
Basically, negation seems simple and applicable to all cases, but it has all kinds of problems, starting with the one addressed here: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/36294/9166
Pairs of contrasting things can be identified, especially if you have identified the whole that they together make up. But that is not identifying either one of them in terms of 'what it is not'. It is, in fact, without a surrounding positive frame of reference, impossible to identify anything by what it is not.
In mathematics (specifically discrete ~) we have the concept of the set complement. Given a set, it basically means "whatever is not on your set."
Your supposition leads to a strange paradox. What is the set complement of everything? You would probably say nothing. Does that mean that nothing is not in everything? How does that make sense? If everything is everything then how can nothing not be inside of it? If nothing isn't the complement of everything, then what's its complement?
You could go in circles forever. It's tautological.
So, I don't think so, no.