Re: Universal Translation Language

On Fri, 28 May 1999 16:51:01 EDT, "From
Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html" <Lassailly@...>
skribis:

>> >To sum up my post : tagging adjectives, adverbs, participles, etc. is=
 (i)=20
>>  Of course is not. But it's highly recommendable in an unambiguous
>>  language.
>>=20
>
>i don't get that one. did you ever read the Chinese "white horse" =
paradigma ?

No, tell me.

>>  >and (ii) not enough at all for translation=20
>>  >programmes.
>> =20
>>  Of course not, again. Some syntax rules are needed as well.
>> =20
>yeah. some thousand ones :-)
I think a few ones would be enough. Though, for the language not being
to rigid, it's better to state some subrules or exceptions to the main
rules.

>>  That's what PoS marking and syntax rules are for in an unambiguous
>>  language, to determine what word/phrase/clause affects which
>>  word/phrase/clause, and how.
>>
>if you succeed in pairing semes within and between each of such PoS and =
still=20
>are able to speak "that" then i'll be the first one to learn your =
language.
>
>The only thing i know for sure about all that is what the guy in charge =
of=20
>the french automatic translation programme told me once : words are no=20
>problem, the problem is multi-word, semi-integrated lexies which are the=
=20
>nucleus of natural languages and are a hundred times as many as words.
>you think making compound or derived words out of two "independent" =
words or=20
>morphemes is benign, but it's not because this multiplies semantic=20
>integration links with different words in the sentence.
But this is something which has to be specified on language's grammar.
=46or example, in the case of "good fisher", let's say in UTL good is
"bona", fish is "fishumi" and man is "homo"; -o for nouns, -a for
adjs, and -am for adverbs. We would have (uncompoundedly) distinct
ways to express what you want:
bona fishuma homo (both adjs affect noun)
bonam fishuma homo (adv affects adj which affects noun)

Let's take it now compoundly (with the suffix -er-, though we could
use hom- as well):

bona fishumero

As an adjective modifies the noun (whether it's compounded/derived or
not), bona affects the object expressed by "fishumero" and not its/his
qualities, so the meaning would be "good man who fishes". If you
wanted to exalt his fishing qualities, you would say something like
"bon-fishuma homo", or perhaps syntax rules could permit an adverb
before a compound noun which affects its adjective part:

bonam fishumero

As you see, it's all on grammar.



Saludos,
Marcos