> the theories have no utilitarian value

If you've ever used a compiler, you've benefitted from "linguist theories" like regular or context free grammars.

People who dismiss an entire field of science as useless invariably know little to nothing about the field, I've found.

Whenever I feel like doing that I try to go read some on the field instead. Usually I find applications I didn't know about.

Do you actually think Linguistics is only about language translation?

> 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.

Yes, they work on formal languages. Not so much on human ones.