LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for AUXLANG Archives


AUXLANG Archives

AUXLANG Archives


AUXLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

AUXLANG Home

AUXLANG Home

AUXLANG  August 1999, Week 1

AUXLANG August 1999, Week 1

Subject:

Re: Machine translation and IALs

From:

Robin Gaskell <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

International Auxiliary Languages <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:57:53 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (131 lines)

Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 14:49:19 +1000
To: [log in to unmask]  [SORRY: I sent the message haf-finished]
 
At 21:02 26/07/99 GMT, Marcos wrote:
>Tem Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:36:02 -0400, Robin Gaskell
>>*   So, your conception is of an IAL as a true 'meaning representation
>>system', ...............................
>Yes, more or less.
>
*   It's nice to be able to reach common understandings.
 
>>> ......   I suspect ... using Glosa words ... commands of Basic ....
>>*   Nix.
>>    There were two ways they explained it:-
>>     .  -----------------
>>     . A single translation renders a valuable document into Glosa: from
>>here, it can be translated into any other language, readily.
>
>Well, and tell me, where's the word "machine" in all that?
>
*   Guess I made an assumption that the reader would interpret " ... a single
translation renders ... " to mean "'computer' translation".
 
>>>logical language in computing,  .....    what's its worthiness?
>>*   To help in translation  ... Planned Language that is intended for
>>translation, is best if it is logic-based.
>
>Ah, I thought you were thinking on something else than MT.
>
*   Probably I was; I do believe that logic in human language is a good
thing, of itself - leading, as it does, to clarity of communication.
 
>>>I still doubt this. ...... I fail to see
>>>great advantages in using a Esperanto-like language as interlingua
>>>instead of a more formal (and non-human) linguistical representation.
>>*   Well, the Esperantists ...... were very strong
>>on having their language as a 'meaning representation system'!
>Yes, they were very strong... but only they.
>
*   It does seem a shame that a proper Feasability Study was not carried
out for this project.  The end result, nobody wins: the Esperantists get
browned off because their project had its funding cut; and we lose, because
narrow-minded bureaucrats can point to the DLT, and say 'Pivot Language'
translation
schemes have been proved not to work.
 
>>>Well, I think that in order to be an optimal source language for MT we
>>>basically need that in it:
>>>1. Every word, phrase, or sentence has one and only one meaning.
>>>2. Every word, phrase, or sentence delivers the necessary information
>>>to generate a proper equivalent word, phrase, or sentence in target
>>>natural languages.
>>*   Sounds like a very particulate philosophy of translation, to me.  I had
>
>I think it's quite basic,
*   Ok, if that's what the computer needs, thats what it's gonna get.  But
I suspect that such a process, without room for idosyncrasies of
expression, will be a little stultifying, not to say sterile.
 
>>imagined that the Artificial Intelligence behind the translation process
>>would have been more sophisticated.
>
>and it doesn't entail that AI be not used, but certainly it would be
>desirable that it wouldn't be needed.
>
*   Sorry!  Apologies here: I was jumping ahead.  Apart from getting my
wires crossed between MT and computer-run translation using a 'Pivot
Language', I was showing that I believe computers will, ultimately, play a
much bigger part, than they now do, in the processing of information.
    But, of course, a human language medium that is highly machine tractable,
must emerge before the AI/NLP process comes together.  Needless to say I
was bundling the concept of the IAL/MT and that of the IAL/Intermediate
Language  together, because I feel that one leads naturally into the other.
    This was naughty, and unrigorous, of me.
 
>>    My studies of language convince me that "ambiguity" ...... cannot be
>>^bred out of^ human language by translation.
>I believe some amount of ambiguity is preserved in UTL, but just to
>the point that it doesn't affect its eficiency on MT.  .......
>
*   A fine line, if you can draw it.
 
>>>This may work perfectly when sentences respond to a simple, standard
>>>structure. But most sentences do not. I seriously doubt that a Glosa
>>>parser could get always the correct PoS of any word just from the
>>>analysis of sentence's syntax,  .........
>>*   ....... in most languages .. where grammar is mixed between
>>morphological structures and word order .. it takes some disambiguating to
>>work out which word is functioning as what.
>>    But, in both written Glosa and machine-generated Glosa, I was thinking
>>that the rules of the language's grammar would dictate, clearly, where the
>>different Parts-of-Speech would fall; ....... down to a single probability.
>
>Maybe, but I still got the impression that using Glosa for MT .......
Having >PoS marking make things much more easy.
>
*   External imposition of P-o-S markers is a possible compromise that
could be struck to make the basic Glosa 'clean lines' acceptable to
Programmers ... but it would spoil Glosa's elegance.
 
>>> Btw, do you know Dkcsac? ..... a guy I found at a.l.a. newsgroup. He seems
>concerned with MT, and he likes Glosa  .....  he expressed, in a moment of
the
>conversation, his disappointment for that Glosa were not suitable for
>such a process.
>
*   No, I have not met the chap, but you might let me have his e-address,
thankyou.
 
>>>>Saluta,
>>>>  Robin Gaskell
>>>Btw, how should we (or the machine) translate that "saluta"? Is it a
>>>verb, a noun, an adverb...?
>>*   There is a fairly well-established heirarchy of functions.  ......
the >>most terse  .....  is a one-word sentence  .....  a verb.
>Ok,  .......  The result is a bad translation (at least into the natlangs I
>know), because we normally use a (plural) noun in that place:
>greetings, saludos...
>
*   As I see it, we can teach the computer that the solitary word, or small
group of words, before a person's name is a "salutation" not some other
part of speech!!!  Let's innovate, here.
 
    Iso mi pa previo dice:-
>>Saluta,
>>  Robin
 
 
The Bottom Line is people NOT money.
    ___________    ^^^^^^     $$$$$

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager