no two languages are so similar that they can be considered...

[Seiichi Myoga]

I'd like you to focus on the underlined part in (1).

(1) According to Sapir, no two languages are so similar that they can be considered representatives of the same social reality; the worlds in which different societies live are different worlds, and not simply the same world with different labels.
(I. Magli & J. Sethre, Social Science)

I think both (2) and (3) correctly provide us with the idea of what the relevant part in (1)
actually means.
(2) no two languages can be considered representatives of the same social reality, no matter how similar they may be
(3) every language is so different from each other that they can not be considered representatives of the same social reality

Do you agree?

Any stylistic suggestions will also be appreciated.

Thank you in advance
Seiichi MYOGA

[Haihao]

No, I don't agree, MYOGA SAN. It should be somewhere around:

no two languages can be considered representatives of the same social reality, since they cannot be similar enough to that extent.

[Jamie (K)]

Seiichi, you're right, except that I would rephrase (3):

3) every language is different enough from each other one that they cannot be considered representatives of the same social reality

[Seiichi Myoga]

Dear Haihao and Jamie (K)

Again, I appreciate your help and comments.

My interest was in whether "so similar" retains the causal reading or changes it to the concessive reading (or allows both). I understand that the former is the case. And thank you for your suggestions, which help us to have a better understanding of the original sentence.

Haihao san,
Just call me Seiichi.

[Haihao]

I have to say that I am troubled here too with seeing (2) = (1):

(1) no two languages are so similar = no two languages are similar enough -> emphasized on dissimilarity.
(2) no matter how similar they may be = even though they are similar enough -> emphasized on similarity.

They are virtually adversative, aren't they?