the rigid grammar makes for a very precise language, provided one follows it.
Your commentary is in Greek which the public doesn’t understand. The implication that WT strays from the grammar is arguable and not understood by the public. Using Greek grammar, translators have molded Jesus into God which is axiomatically not true whether or not the translator construes so using rigid Greek grammar. And that is what wt meant by the wt commentary you reference. Also, there is no fear that wt translation of the Bible is grammatically out of phase as you imply. Compared to other translations wt is in phase with the rigid base text except when wt interprets what the writer means or the overall teaching of the Bible ( keeping it simple. ) I respectfully understand your qualifications, Dr. I don’t think you are cut and pasting the conclusions of others about WT. Also, any mismatch is not significant overall. WT representation of Greek in the NWT is in phase with the base text and valid. But what do I know. That is only my humble belief.