For BNF to eliminate the need for natural language for purposes of unification it would need a second level of syntactic restrictions. However, this could make it too strong- i.e. Turing complete. Similarly, I-language can't be univocal with E-language otherwise it would face a halting problem.
Thus, contra Homi Bhabha, 'newness enters the world' anytime an imperative character string encounters an intensional receiver. This is the 'apurvata' of the Mimamsika- that novel or unprecedented (we might say high entropy) thing encountered in the text which determines its i-language meaning.
Apurva has another meaning- it is what is unexpended in karma whose seed has not yet come to fruition. It links to antarabhava as 'birth determining jati' and, more especially in Buddhism, with the Gandharvas who act as the efficient cause in karmic transmigration.
This idea is an old one present even in the Avesta's Ram Yasht. As for the antarabhava, it is better known nowadays as the Tibetan 'bardo' or, for Sufis, Ibn Arabi's barzakh.
That last, 'as a limit which unites what it otherwise divides'- or more simply a membrane- at one time, looked a promising method of ridding philosophy of false binaries and sorites type problems and Derrida/Deleuze type diarrhea about 'difference'.
That promise hasn't been kept because 'limits' aren't particularly interesting if they arise out of sequences of already existing but unknowable objects. Overlapping choice sequences, however, can define a co-evolutionary finitary fitness landscape corresponding to approximable reals.
Thus, Hindus are perfectly at liberty to think of antarabhava as not so much a limit, but a membrane, damming up and releasing capacitance diversity according to embedded triggers for which it has a co-evolved receptor. Thus the lyric, Vak's love child by the Gandharvas, can lead us back to the Vedas to discover
So rich and strange it each moment reappears
True Beauty's tribute is ever in arrears!