Re: Universal Translation Language

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