🚀 go-pugleaf

Several posters have remarked that certain algorithms would be much simpler if
the natural language being processed by them had been designed sensibly.  This
remark usually draws a reply like "The software must change to meet the needs
of the users.  Computers are the servant of Man, not the other way around.  It
is absurd to suggest that a society should change its alphabet.".

It's true that a computer is a tool.  What nobody seems to have noticed is
that *natural language is also a tool*.  The alphabet is the servant of Man,
not the other way around; thus it is appropriate to suggest that it should
evolve to meet Man's changing needs.

I learned from the textbooks that English has certain rules concerning whether
punctuation goes inside or outside of quotes.  As a computer user, I regularly
break these rules and instead apply a more sensible one: the punctuation goes
inside if and only if it is part of the text being quoted.  If the text being
quoted is input to a computer, this can be critical; but I do this even with
straight English.  We who follow this convention are figuratively rewriting
the textbooks.

If it is painful to adapt the software to handle the peculiarities of certain
languages/alphabets (I have in mind Chinese, Japanese, and to a lesser extent
the accented letters of some European languages, and to some extent English),
then it is reasonable to consider the possibility that the language/alphabet
should change instead of the software.  I am not saying that the former *must*
be the one to change, only that it should be considered.  I recognize that
there's a lot of inertia to overcome, but might not the benefits be worth it?

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
Disclaimer: The word "Man" in the above denotes the entire species.
--->  Followup cautiously; this article was cross-posted!  <---