🚀 go-pugleaf

Stefan MUEHLBACHER <SMuehlba@frequentis.com> wrote:
> [...] I think it is very unlikely that an artificial
> universal WRITTEN language will ever be accepted and
> understood by a significant part of the universal
> population. The reason is the big learning effort
> compared with languages that are already broadly used...

(1) the new language should be much easier to learn than
natural languages.
(2) learning an artificial language is fun if its design
is good and when it introduces new concepts, etc.  For
example: nouns, verbs etc are distinguished by color; or
future/past tense by "/" or "\" italics (just my whim).

> So why must the universal language be WRITTEN? I think
> it is much better to invent a universal 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 unambiguous without predefining all
> of them.

this is an "AI" problem, and is probably the hardest of
them all - involving language comprehension and passing
the Turing test.  What we need is (as someone pointed
out to me) a "restricted language" that is suitable for
machines to translate even without comprehension of it.

it looks like to me there're already similar projects
going on.  let me do some checking first... :)
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.---