Quote:Antonio: I should not insist so much on the idea that it is not a language.
No, Antonio, that is not what I meant.
You should not insist that we are rejecting a symbolic structure of some kind. We are not rejecting it. Many of us are looking at a variety of possible interpretations of the text, one of those being symbolic. You seem to be assuming we are not.
However, one has to keep an open mind until there is evidence. Which means that we also have to consider that it might be natural language (or some synthetic language), or natural language mixed with symbols (numbers, astrological, calendrical, kabbalistic, secret society, or some other symbology).
In other words, one should not decide either way until there is evidence. Yes, it might be symbolic, but one has to SHOW how it could work.