--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozg...@...> wrote: > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > >> Supposedly some translations engines use Sanskrit as an > >> intermediate language because it is unambiguous. The program > >> will take text in a language and translate it to Sanskrit and > >> then from Sanskrit to the target language. > > > > I´m sorry, but this sounds like bullshit to me. > > > > I know very little about Sanskrit, but everything > > I ever heard talked specifically *about* its > > ambiguity. They talked about poetry forms in > > which every word in the verse could have several > > meanings, and the whole *art* of the poetry form > > was being able to put a whole series of these > > words -- *each* of them having four or five > > meanings -- together in such a way that no > > matter which meaning of any of the words you > > pick, the whole verse still makes sense. > > > > Plus, just looking at the definitions Card posts > > here, words often have *more* than four or five > > completely different meanings, right there in the > > definitions he posts. > > > > So I´m thinkin´ that this stuff about using > > Sanskrit as an ¨intermediate language¨ for trans- > > lation engines is just someone´s True Believer > > bullshit. > > > > If you want an unambiguous language, choose French. > > That is why all international treaties use it as > > the ¨master language¨ for the treaties. There is > > a copy in the language of each country, but the > > master is in French, because it is so precise. > > Everything I´ve ever heard about Sanskrit presents > > it as just the opposite. > > > > Card or others can correct me on this if I´ve heard > > incorrectly. I´m not trying to knock Sanskrit or > > anything; it´s just that Bhairitu´s claim sounds > > the opposite of everything I´ve ever heard about > > the nature of Sanskrit as a language. > Here: > http://americansanskrit.com/read/a_techage.php > > Guess maybe you forgot that article you must have read in AI > Magazine back in 1985. :-D > Those NASA folks must be real TB'ers.
I stand by my guns. You are making True Believer arguments that have nothing to do with the actual nature of the language, as is the TB site you reference. Do you really not realize that you pointed me to a True Believer site. Go back and read the language they use when talking about Sanskrit. It would be one thing if Sanskrit actually *was* an ¨unambiguous language¨ as you claim, but every- thing I ever heard in any of my linguistics classes back in college was that it is the opposite. The fact that some TBs can convince NASA of the opposite enough to do experiments with it doesn´t change that. Please supply the names of these ¨translation engines¨ that convert languages to Sanskrit before translating it to something else. The whole *idea* of doing this is True Believer stuff. Hint: Citing Sanskrit´s supposed spiritual qualities or supposed status as the ¨mother of all languages¨ ain´t gonna cut the mustard. That´s just more True Believer shit. Dig up an article or two that talks specifically about the ¨unambiguous nature¨ of Sanskrit and post them and then I´ll believe that you´re not clinging to True Believer ideas. Until you can, I do. Again, I have no grudge against Sanskrit in any way. If it were the type of language you claim it is, I would have no problem with this theory. It´s just that everything I have ever heard about the language says that it *isn´t* that kind of language, and in fact is the opposite, almost infinitely ambiguous. That is why, in my opinion, TB types gravitate to it with their theories of it as the ¨mother language.¨ They can project whatever they want onto it.
