Jabberwocky language is an interesting comparison; here's the first two lines of Lewis Carrols delightful verse:
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe
For comparison, here, I'd suggest the first line of Joyce's Finnegans Wake - which might be thought as a sustained attempt at a novel in Jabberwockian style.
riverrun, past Eve and Adams, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us back from commodius vicus of recirculation to Howth Castle and environs.
Now, the first extract, at least to me gives me a picture of dolphins gambolling in the waves in a brilliant sunny day - but to translate into this removes entirely the wordplay and alliterative music which is essential to this poetic effect - it also works against the grain of conventional poetry which ties in, I suppose, with Carrils unconventionality.
The second extract, from Joyce has a gloss but it moves in deeper waters, as it references myth, Christianity, cyclical time and therefore natality and mortality.
Again the resources of language that Joyce brings to bear is essential to the artistic effect; still one might say, it's some serious effort to read in this manner, because the inter-textuality needs to be natural for one to appreciate the artistry in itself, as opposed to discursively - which is a step away.
Similarly, I would suggest that philosophers that are heavily invested in language, and it's modes of expression do require glossing, and commentaries as an initiation into that tradition - which might seem only to be a tradition unto themselves - but aren't as they are speaking to each other - as they should be.
One example: the word, suture, appears both in Badiou and Lacan; and a proper glossing has to take a horizontal perspective (ie comparative by several thinkers) as opposed to vertical (ie comparative within one thinker).
Perhaps, in the internet age - I mean the possibilities of actual intertextuality - as opposed to one of the mind - it may become much easier to penetrate this 'fog' of language without getting thoroughly lost and bewildered - this itself was an admission by Agamben who said he was rescued from the Heideggerian mists, I think, Foucault.
But this doesn't solve the problem of aboutness - how does one find out what a philosophy is about? This is a question of orientation; for example as someone trained in the physical-mathematical traditions of the West, I was interested in things that are, and how they are in the slipstream of time - so hearing that Heidegger Being and Time, is a profound meditation on such-like, I looked at it and was puzzled, irritated and annoyed by its opacity - it's unapproachability.
It takes time to learn new habits, which doesn't mean losing old habits - but sometimes it does; and of course there is the hurdle of mutually incomprehensible languages - I mean easily.
And for me there, it was a question of ontology; if one is trained into thinking of mass or energy as basic, this doesn't help - or rather it does somewhat as it's one aspect - in Spinozan language a mode; and in Aristotle, he points to this:
But it may be possible for everything to be made of the same stuff; this ... is the sense in which some natural scientists say that everything is one.
PS I just read the first chapter of Time & Being, in Joan Stambaughs translation - and it wasn't so bad...