One argument for conditional narration by meaning is the recognized legitimacy of explaining the law in the language of non-Arabic speakers when the explainer properly knows that language. If the intended legal meaning can be expressed in another language, proponents reason that an equivalent Arabic paraphrase can also be possible.
This argument supplies a rationale for permissibility, not permission to add whatever a narrator wishes. A translator or explainer remains bound by the intended meaning, legal limits, and context. Expressions that broaden or narrow a ruling are not justified by this analogy.
Changing language illustrates that meaning can be communicated across verbal forms. It does not, by itself, establish every individual's competence or the exact equivalence of any proposed paraphrase.