[Legend2440]

The trouble is that english doesn’t fit neatly into any of these categories. It has features that make it at least a context-free language, but can’t handle other features of context-free languages like unlimited nesting.

Ultimately these are categories of formal languages, and natural language is an entirely different kind of thing.

[nabla9]

Strictly speaking natural languages fit into Context-Sensitive (Type-1) in Chomsky Hierarchy, but that's too broad to be useful.

In practice they are classified into MCSL (Mildly Context-Sensitive) subcategory defined by Aravind K. Joshi.

[krnlclnl]

Sure, if you accept and agree with Joshi.

No reason to do that though, except to validate some random persons perspective on language. The sky will not open and smash us with a giant foot if we reject such an obligation.

[nabla9]

Natural languages being in MCSL (Mildly Context-Sensitive) is the consensus among linguistics, not some random individual's viewpoint.

[krnlclnl]

OK? What concrete human problems human biology faces are resolved by this groups consensus? Obsession with notation does little to improve crop yields, or improve working conditions for the child labor these academic geniuses rely on.

Sure, linguists, glad you found some semantics that fit your obsession. Happy for you!

Most people will never encounter their work and live their lives never knowing such an event happened.

[suddenlybananas]

You can also reject quantum physics and the sky will not open and smash us with a giant foot. However, to do so without serious knowledge of physics would be quite dumb.

[krnlclnl]

Apples and oranges. Language emerges from human biology which emerges from the physical realm. In the end language emerges then from the physical realm. Trying to de-couple it from physical nature and make it an abstract thought bubble is akin to bike shedding in programming.

[suddenlybananas]

You could say this about literally anything.