Re: Universal Translation Language
| From: | Bryan Maloney <bjm10@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, May 27, 1999, 23:19 |
|---|
On Thu, 27 May 1999, Marcos Franco wrote:
> 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,
Here's the thing. Wittgenstein's corpus is very much concerned with the
question of ambiguity, and ultimately with whether or not it is a
universal good to eliminate ambiguity.