> Do you actually think...

No, I don't, but a working translation is proof that the theory does understand human language as it's actually used.

Or in this case, that it doesn't.

And is it your view that not having the field's equivalent of a theory of everything makes that field useless and without applications?

Nice strawman.

My view is: if you have a theory, it should be falsifiable.

If your "theory" isn't, then it's a religion.

Fascinating. Is linguistics a religion, in your view?

Maybe try saying something original, instead of putting words in my mouth.