Re: Universal Translation Language
| From: | Marcos Franco <xavo@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, May 27, 1999, 22:01 |
|---|
On Wed, 26 May 1999 18:50:52 -0400, Bryan Maloney <bjm10@...>
skribis:
>On Wed, 26 May 1999, Marcos Franco wrote:
>
>> 1. Being unambiguous (or unambiguous enough), which make it suitable
>> for good quality machine translation (from it) and other computational
>> issues, and for scientific, philosophical and linguistical purposes.
>
>I suggest you read the entire corpus of Wittgenstein, from the beginning
>to end of his career. Then consider this question of ambiguity.
Thanks for your advice, though it's not the aim of my language to be a
philosophical one or so. The important thing is to keep it unambiguous
enough to be suitable for computer parsing and MT. Btw, this can bring
subsequent linguistic advantages, but as I said on my first message,
main objectives of the language are computer tractability and ease of
learn (at least for western world), in a way it may serve also as a
normal IAL.
Saludos,
Marcos