An advertisement published in the most recent issue of your journal seemed to imply that chimpanzees are less capable as translators than humans. I’d like to point out that if you confined a bunch of humans to small cages, fed them nothing but peanuts and bananas, and never allowed them to take bathroom breaks, you probably wouldn’t get very good translation out of them, either.
It may interest you to know that in fact, a number of chimpanzees in the Republic of Mfasiri are employed as highly successful professional, well-
Acting Head, Import-
Chimps are old news. The translators of the future are computers. Just for fun, this reply was translated from French to English through a genetically plausible series of seventeen languages and dialects, including French, Middle French, Old French, Late Latin, Early Latin, PIE, Proto-
In a recent issue of SpecGram, Morris Swadesh III lived up to his pretentious potential by trotting out this old canard again:
After all, if you can’t trust your data, who can you trust?
What kind of question is that? The answer is clear: the theory! You trust the theory! Why can’t you imbeciles get that through your thick heads? Data is, I’ve heard some claim, sporadically useful
We’re sorry if Morris’s article offended you with its perfectly reasonable data-
Except for the part where we aren’t. Pbbbblt!
You theoretical syntacticians are all alike
Speculative Grammarian accepts well-