"We disconnect and do not connect again."
Translation:אנחנו מתנתקים ולא מתחברים שוב.
אנחנו מנתקים ולא מחברים שוב
could be correct if you read it as connecting a cable rather than connecting ourselves.
But מנתקים/מנתקות and מחברים/מחברות take an object. In daily conversation you can end up saying something like that, but only when there's context and the object is known.
Would you say that in Hebrew it would be ungrammatical to omit the object when the verb usually takes an object? Surely not, like "I am eating" and "I am eating an apple" are both grammatical. I see why the given translation makes more sense meaning-wise, but I still think the translation from English would be ambiguous.
I think on the contrary, your suggestion makes as much sense meaning-wise, but a little less grammar-wise.
Any verb has one or more "signatures" that determine how it is used, what sorts of objects it takes. Now, אוכל has two signatures, transitive - אוכל תפוח - or intransitive, אוכל. Some verbs can't be intransitive, such as נתן. You can't just say אני נותן, not without context. I'm not a native English speaker but I remember learning a similar example in English - you can say "I am eating an apple" or "I am eating", because "eat" can be either transitive or intransitive. But the verb "devour", with a similar meaning, is only transitive, so you can't say "I am devouring" without an object.
I think מנתקים and מחברים are only transitive verbs. But of course it can be argued and in the end language is a native speaker's intuition.
Almog your comment is very interesting but the end was a little strange to me. Are you saying that the natives have a sixth sense that the foreigners will never acquire? Is the same for languages with rules or academies that regulate them? (Maybe you are implying that the speakers are the ones who dictate how the lenguage is used)