The text mentions three hypotheses on the linguistic content of the manuscript. I'll split them in a different way:
- It's all meaningless babble.
- It's language, encoded in either a lost phonetic system (alphabet, abjad etc.) or a simple replacement cypher.
- It's language, but encoded in a complex way.
I think #1 and #3 are implausible - because the endings are repetitive, they look a lot like suffixes in a fusional language. Like this:
That leaves us with #2. I'd also argue that the underlying system is an alphabet instead of an abjad; I'd expect the later to be a bit less repetitive.