Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding of Chomsky's theory is that deep down, all human languages are equivalent to each other. This would imply the possibility of perfect translation, even by computers. So why, after decades of trying, are computer translations so horrible? And why is it so difficult to translate literature and poetry?
I mentioned in an earlier post that there is a specific genetic defect that supports Chomsky. There are people with a single gene variant who cannot learn the rule for regular verbs. They learn language just fine, but for them, all verbs are irregular and must be explicitely learned. In one way it supports Chomsky, but it also supports theories that assert that human language ability evolved from tiny, incremental variations, and is not simply an engine dropped in, completely developed.
What you are getting to is the basic question of whether Chomsky is right or not. All non-trivial synthetic language are equivalent in expressive power. So, either this has some bearing on natural language or it doesn't. But it is proven true.
The reason automatic translation is easy to trip up is that humans (except those translating Japanese or Chinese product instructions) understand what they are translating - they understand both the original and the translated result. No machine or mechanical process can be said to "understand" anything. Which goes back to the more basic question: Is there something going on in your head, called "intelligence" that cannot be implemented in a machine?