Re: Universal Translation Language

>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.

The last word on machine translation:

It is possible to make a language that has every word so precisely defined
taht unambiguous translation to any otehr language is possible. But people
would need special training to write a passage in that language, and machien
translation into such a language would be utterly impossible, for a number
of dull reasons. It is also conceivable taht no matter how precisely a
language is defined, a concept can be found that will not be precisely
defined by one of teh words in that language.

---
Fabian
Rule One: Question the unquestionable,
ask the unaskable, eff the ineffable,
think the unthinkable, and screw the inscrutable.