Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Universal Translation Language

From:Marcos Franco <xavo@...>
Date:Sunday, May 30, 1999, 23:46
On Sun, 30 May 1999 12:36:53 -0700, Charles <catty@...>
skribis:


>> costs are normally reduced to a 5-20% (depending on number of target >> languages and requirements of quality, given by post-editing). > >I thought it was even simpler: UTL would be trivially easy to >translate *to* any natlang. This, because of UTL's regularity >and lack of accidental ambiguity.=20
Yeah, that's what I said. In any language, even UTL,
>one can always deliberately ambiguize by saying "the sorta-XXX >kinda-YYY thing", so it isn't a thought-prison ...
Of course, it works like any other auxlang (Eo, Ido...) but without plursignifaj vortoj/sentencoj...
>UTL could be either written directly as the source text >pre-translation, or it could be roughly translated from >the writer's natlang and then proofed/corrected until the >natlang->UTL->natlang output looked correct to the writer himself; >then published simultaneously for all supported langs. This is >what the funded "UNL" project claims to be doing, I think.
UNL is not an usable language, it's just a code with tree structure. It has not being devised to author or to edit texts directly on it. As a result, with UNL we are stuck to traditional NL>NL MT errors. Saludos, Marcos