Print

Print


Je 03:59 atm 11/24/98 +0000, charles skribis:
 
>Paul O Bartlett wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, charles wrote (small piece):
>>
>> > None of the IALs is both
>> > easy to speak
>>
>>     This is a mighty broad generalization about all IALs indifferently.
>> What Esperanto I have heard spoken by those fluent in it is just that
>> -- fluent, as well as fluid.  Whether this sort of speaking fluidity is
>> easily to -all- adult learners is another matter, but certainly some
>> find Esperanto easy to speak.  Fair is fair.
>
>Basing an IAL on roots with complex consonant clusters
>is a loser, since most people cannot pronounce it.
>
Define "loser", please. And compared to what?
 
>> > and easy to parse by computers.
>>
>>     There are those who give little or no thought to computer
>> parsibility.  Why should we pay attention to it?  People have been
>> speaking not-particularly-computer-parsible languages for lo, these
>> long millenia.  To many IALists, it simply is not a big deal.
>
>Man can't fly but his machines do. Now machines
>are capable of parsing language. Nobody really
>has to fly, and nobody needs a computer, today,
>but that's where things are headed.
>
It is a happy fact that human beings, when they create technology, adjust
it to fit _their_ preferences; they don't adjust themselves to fit _its_
preferences. People won't change their linguistic habits to make it easier
to communicate with machines; they'll change the machines so that they can
communicate more easily with people. You will see machines using
complicated, kludgy programs that can understand, for instance, Chinese,
long before you will find people going to the effort of learning to speak
in "C".
 
 
-- Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/
(English version: http://www.webcom.com/~donh/dona.html)