—————————————————————–
Guest naysayer Brian thoughtfully submitted the following:
Iltnsegnetiry I’m sdutynig tihs crsrootaivnel pnoheenmon at the Dptmnearet
of Liuniigctss at Absytrytewh Uivsreitny and my exartrnairdoy doisiervecs
waleoetderhlhy cndairotct the picsbeliud fdnngiis rrgdinaeg the rtlvaeie
dfuictlify of ialtnstny ttalrisanng sentences. My rsceeerhars deplveeod a
cnionevent ctnoiaptorn at hnasoa/tw.nartswdbvweos/utrtek:p./il taht
dosnatterems that the hhpsteyios uuiqelny wrtaarns criieltidby if the
aoussmpitn that the prreoecandpne of your wrods is not eendetxd is
uueniqtolnabse. Aoilegpos for aidnoptg a cdocianorttry vwpiienot but,
ttoheliacrley spkeaing, lgitehnneng the words can mnartafucue an iocnuurgons
samenttet that is vlrtiauly isbpilechmoenrne.
Or, if you prefer…
Interestingly I’m studying this controversial phenomenon at the Department
of Linguistics at Aberystwyth University and my extraordinary discoveries
wholeheartedly contradict the publicised findings regarding the relative
difficulty of instantly translating sentences. My researchers developed a
convenient contraption at http://www.aardvarkbusiness.net/tool that
demonstrates that the hypothesis uniquely warrants credibility if the
assumption that the preponderance of your words is not extended is
unquestionable. Apologies for adopting a contradictory viewpoint but,
theoretically speaking, lengthening the words can manufacture an incongruous
statement that is virtually incomprehensible. 🙂