🚀 go-pugleaf

I agree that a universial language would simplify the translation from one
natural language into another. 

But that universial language should have the additional 
requirement that its symbols are unambigous and its syntax is also
unambigous.
A natural language normally does not have this feature.

Second I think it is very unlikely that an artificial universial WRITTEN
language will ever be accepted and understood by a significant part of the
universial population.
The reason is the big learning effort compared with languages that are
already broadly used. As long as an artificial language is not important
there will be also little motivation to learn it.

So why must the universial language be WRITTEN? I think it is much better
to invent a universial knowledge or language representation. This
representation need not be understood directly by anybody, it should be an
abstract representation that can be best handled by computers. It should
also provide a management for its symbols to keep them unambigous without
predefining all of them.

The advantage of this would be: nobody has to learn a new language, the
translation into a natural language is just a matter of symbol mapping and
syntax.

Is there another reason why your universial language should be 'written'?


Stefan Muehlbacher, Vienna

Private: e&s@kabsi.at



kyan1@hofstra.edu wrote in article <7ho49v$nmj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Here is a more detailed explanation:
> 
> (1) natural language <--> natural language translation is a
> difficult problem for machines because, basically, machines
> cannot understand the meaning of texts, at least not with
> current technology.  my idea is to remove the "semantic"
> part of this problem so that the remaining task for the
> computer is reduced to syntax / transliteration aspects,
> things that computers do well.  strange as it may sound,
> the point is to make _humans_ adapt to computers.
> 
> (2) one consequence of this is the automatic no-nonsense
> translation of documents by computers, provided an original
> has been created according to the protocol.  this means
> making "translation engines" for each natural language.
> moreover, a word processor can hook up the translator so
> that side-by-side editing is possible.  this greatly
> increases the ease of usage.
> 
> (3) the development of this language (and probably afew
> experimental "versions" of it) can employ the procedures
> used by the (quite famous) "Linux operating system" if
> you know what Im talking about.  Basically this means all
> the details of the design is maintained on a web-site and
> are open to modification by all participants.
> 
> (4) esperanto will be considered.  myself, i dont know
> much about this language right now.  but if you look at
> the way computer languages used to be developed, you'd
> agree much experimentation and improvements will be
> needed before a workable version is born.  even then
> they're constantly evolving.
> 
> (5) Ive received some responses and will get the mailing
> list up soon --  thanks!!  in the meantime we can discuss
> in the newsgroups i guess :)
> 
> Yan King Yin  http://members.tripod.com/kickle
> 
> 
> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
>