[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > Sanskrit has many more tenses than languages like English or even > Hindi. It was about at the level where I was studying the 9th level > tense that I sort of lost interest and someone with expertise in the > language suggested I didn't need to worry to much about that as the > sutras and stotras were actually simple poetry and didn't use much of > the higher level elements of the language. I think that's very true. At least the Vedic suutra style seems to have extremely few finite verb forms. Thus one can forget about the tenses of verbs (present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, aorist, future, periphrastic future...) when reading the suutras. For instance amongst the first 100 or so suutras of BS there seems to be only one finite verb form: saMpatteriti jaiministathA hi *darshayati* where BaadaraayaNa appears to say that Jaimini sees (darshayati) that particular matter a bit differently than he himself. As to YS, I think there are less than five finite verb forms, all of them prolly in the present tense indicative, like in III 37 tataH praatibhashraavaNavedanaadarshaasvaadavaartaa *jaayante*. The same seems to be true in the case of aSTaadhyaayii. Quickly browsed through about 100 suutras from the beginning. Found only one word that *might* be a finite verb form (vaktur).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > authfriend wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > >> As for the website Bhairitu pointed to, all that > >> you have to do to see its True Believer nature > >> is to do a mental "search and replace" on the > >> text in it and replace every mention of "Sanskrit" > >> with "Hebrew." Then you'll see what the site is > >> really about. > >> > >> It's attempting to present a case for learning > >> Sanskrit based on its supposedly spiritual nature, > >> and its supposed status as the "mother of all > >> languages." > >> > > > > But if you read the Briggs article at the URL I > > posted in response to Bhairitu, you won't see any of > > that; it's purely technical. Although the site itself > > is pro-Sanskrit, they've reproduced the original > > piece without commentary: > > > > http://www.gosai.com/science/sanskrit-nasa.html > > > > > >> The only relevant > >> piece of information in this context is whether > >> it is an *unambiguous* language. Given a sentence > >> in Sanskrit, can that sentence be parsed one and > >> only one way? > >> > >> Everything I've ever heard is that the answer to > >> that question is a definitive "No." And that > >> unambiguous answer rules out Sanskrit as the > >> basis of an experiment in machine translation > >> that is based on the notion of that base lang- > >> uage being unambiguous. > >> > > > > I've now looked at the article a little more > > closely, and while I don't have the chops to > > understand it, it does seem clear that the issue > > of ambiguity has several different elements, > > depending on what aspect of a language you're > > looking at. What I can't tell is whether the > > kind of ambiguity Barry believes characterizes > > Sanskrit is the same kind of ambiguity Briggs > > claims is avoided in Sanskrit. > > > > It does seem clear that to rule out Sanskrit on > > the basis of ambiguity, such that it cannot serve > > as an artificial language in the manner Briggs > > proposes, one would have to *read the article* > > and understand the nature of the case he's making, > > and then refute it on the same level. I strongly > > suspect that what Barry's saying has nothing to do > > with the case Briggs makes. > > > > A big part of the reason for apparent ambiguity of > > a Sanskrit sentence may have to do with > > insufficient expertise in Sanskrit grammar. A > > non-native speaker of English without much > > knowledge of English grammar might be completely > > flummoxed as to how to interpret "Time flies like > > an arrow, fruit flies like a banana," the sentence > > Barry cited. And Sanskrit is *vastly* more complex > > grammatically than English. > > > > There may be clues, in other words, encoded in a > > Sanskrit sentence that someone not steeped in the > > grammatical details would miss, and thus think the > > sentence could be parsed more than one way, when in > > fact the clues point to one and only one way. > > > > It's also possible, it seems to me, that the content > > of Sanskrit sentences makes a difference--that a > > sentence describing the nature of Purusha, for > > example, may have ambiguities and/or multiple levels > > of meaning that a sentence describing an everyday > > situation may not. > Sanskrit has many more tenses than languages like English or even > Hindi. It was about at the level where I was studying the 9th level > tense that I sort of lost interest and someone with expertise in the > language suggested I didn't need to worry to much about that as the > sutras and stotras were actually simple poetry and didn't use much of > the higher level elements of the language. A few years back I also got > into a chat about this card and another guy, who had a lot of Sanskrit > expertise on alt.meditation.transcendental about the levels of tenses in > Sanskrit. > > Obviously implementing a translation engine is quite complex and the > articles point out only one approach that might be used not "the > approach." In fact the first word I used in my first post on the > subject was "supposedly" which qualifies everything that followed as not > necessarily an implemented approach but one that has been mentioned. > Companies could be very sworn to secrecy and may indeed have a lexicon > system based on Sanskrit for all we know (and maybe never know). > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini The Ashtadhyayi is one of the earliest known grammars of Sanskrit, although he refers to previous texts like the Unadisutra, Dhatupatha, and Ganapatha [2]. It is the earliest known work on descriptive linguistics, generative linguistics, and together with the work of his immediate predecessors (Nirukta, Nighantu, Pratishakyas) stands at the beginning of the history of linguistics itself. It is the earliest known work on descriptive linguistics, ***generative linguistics***,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
authfriend wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > >> As for the website Bhairitu pointed to, all that >> you have to do to see its True Believer nature >> is to do a mental "search and replace" on the >> text in it and replace every mention of "Sanskrit" >> with "Hebrew." Then you'll see what the site is >> really about. >> >> It's attempting to present a case for learning >> Sanskrit based on its supposedly spiritual nature, >> and its supposed status as the "mother of all >> languages." >> > > But if you read the Briggs article at the URL I > posted in response to Bhairitu, you won't see any of > that; it's purely technical. Although the site itself > is pro-Sanskrit, they've reproduced the original > piece without commentary: > > http://www.gosai.com/science/sanskrit-nasa.html > > >> The only relevant >> piece of information in this context is whether >> it is an *unambiguous* language. Given a sentence >> in Sanskrit, can that sentence be parsed one and >> only one way? >> >> Everything I've ever heard is that the answer to >> that question is a definitive "No." And that >> unambiguous answer rules out Sanskrit as the >> basis of an experiment in machine translation >> that is based on the notion of that base lang- >> uage being unambiguous. >> > > I've now looked at the article a little more > closely, and while I don't have the chops to > understand it, it does seem clear that the issue > of ambiguity has several different elements, > depending on what aspect of a language you're > looking at. What I can't tell is whether the > kind of ambiguity Barry believes characterizes > Sanskrit is the same kind of ambiguity Briggs > claims is avoided in Sanskrit. > > It does seem clear that to rule out Sanskrit on > the basis of ambiguity, such that it cannot serve > as an artificial language in the manner Briggs > proposes, one would have to *read the article* > and understand the nature of the case he's making, > and then refute it on the same level. I strongly > suspect that what Barry's saying has nothing to do > with the case Briggs makes. > > A big part of the reason for apparent ambiguity of > a Sanskrit sentence may have to do with > insufficient expertise in Sanskrit grammar. A > non-native speaker of English without much > knowledge of English grammar might be completely > flummoxed as to how to interpret "Time flies like > an arrow, fruit flies like a banana," the sentence > Barry cited. And Sanskrit is *vastly* more complex > grammatically than English. > > There may be clues, in other words, encoded in a > Sanskrit sentence that someone not steeped in the > grammatical details would miss, and thus think the > sentence could be parsed more than one way, when in > fact the clues point to one and only one way. > > It's also possible, it seems to me, that the content > of Sanskrit sentences makes a difference--that a > sentence describing the nature of Purusha, for > example, may have ambiguities and/or multiple levels > of meaning that a sentence describing an everyday > situation may not. Sanskrit has many more tenses than languages like English or even Hindi. It was about at the level where I was studying the 9th level tense that I sort of lost interest and someone with expertise in the language suggested I didn't need to worry to much about that as the sutras and stotras were actually simple poetry and didn't use much of the higher level elements of the language. A few years back I also got into a chat about this card and another guy, who had a lot of Sanskrit expertise on alt.meditation.transcendental about the levels of tenses in Sanskrit. Obviously implementing a translation engine is quite complex and the articles point out only one approach that might be used not "the approach." In fact the first word I used in my first post on the subject was "supposedly" which qualifies everything that followed as not necessarily an implemented approach but one that has been mentioned. Companies could be very sworn to secrecy and may indeed have a lexicon system based on Sanskrit for all we know (and maybe never know).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > What else would Sanskrit scholars be looking at if > it wasn't spiritual texts, Turq? That seems to be > the only stuff that survived. Not according to Briggs: "Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence." And: "The author [of a grammatical analysis quoted by Briggs], Nagesha, is one of a group of three or four prominent theoreticians who stand at the end of a long tradition of investigation. Its beginnings date to the middle of the first millennium B.C. when the morphology and phonological structure of the language, as well as the framework for its syntactic description were codified by Panini. "His successors elucidated the brief, algebraic formulations that he had used as grammatical rules and where possible tried to improve upon them. A great deal of fervent grammatical research took place between the fourth century B.C and the fourth century A.D. and culminated in the seminal work, the Vaiakyapadiya by Bhartrhari. "Little was done subsequently to advance the study of syntax, until the so-called 'New Grammarian' school appeared in the early part of the sixteenth century with the publication of Bhattoji Dikshita's Vaiyakarana-bhusanasara and its commentary by his relative Kaundabhatta, who worked from Benares. Nagesha (1730-1810) was responsible for a major work, the Vaiyakaranasiddhantamanjusa, or Treasury of definitive statements of grammarians, which was condensed later into the earlier described work. These books have not yet been translated."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > As for the website Bhairitu pointed to, all that > you have to do to see its True Believer nature > is to do a mental "search and replace" on the > text in it and replace every mention of "Sanskrit" > with "Hebrew." Then you'll see what the site is > really about. > > It's attempting to present a case for learning > Sanskrit based on its supposedly spiritual nature, > and its supposed status as the "mother of all > languages." But if you read the Briggs article at the URL I posted in response to Bhairitu, you won't see any of that; it's purely technical. Although the site itself is pro-Sanskrit, they've reproduced the original piece without commentary: http://www.gosai.com/science/sanskrit-nasa.html > The only relevant > piece of information in this context is whether > it is an *unambiguous* language. Given a sentence > in Sanskrit, can that sentence be parsed one and > only one way? > > Everything I've ever heard is that the answer to > that question is a definitive "No." And that > unambiguous answer rules out Sanskrit as the > basis of an experiment in machine translation > that is based on the notion of that base lang- > uage being unambiguous. I've now looked at the article a little more closely, and while I don't have the chops to understand it, it does seem clear that the issue of ambiguity has several different elements, depending on what aspect of a language you're looking at. What I can't tell is whether the kind of ambiguity Barry believes characterizes Sanskrit is the same kind of ambiguity Briggs claims is avoided in Sanskrit. It does seem clear that to rule out Sanskrit on the basis of ambiguity, such that it cannot serve as an artificial language in the manner Briggs proposes, one would have to *read the article* and understand the nature of the case he's making, and then refute it on the same level. I strongly suspect that what Barry's saying has nothing to do with the case Briggs makes. A big part of the reason for apparent ambiguity of a Sanskrit sentence may have to do with insufficient expertise in Sanskrit grammar. A non-native speaker of English without much knowledge of English grammar might be completely flummoxed as to how to interpret "Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana," the sentence Barry cited. And Sanskrit is *vastly* more complex grammatically than English. There may be clues, in other words, encoded in a Sanskrit sentence that someone not steeped in the grammatical details would miss, and thus think the sentence could be parsed more than one way, when in fact the clues point to one and only one way. It's also possible, it seems to me, that the content of Sanskrit sentences makes a difference--that a sentence describing the nature of Purusha, for example, may have ambiguities and/or multiple levels of meaning that a sentence describing an everyday situation may not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
TurquoiseB wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu 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. >>> >> I love Sanskrit, but not because I'd think it's unambiguous. >> Just as a simple example, the inflectional form 'yoginaH' could >> be either ablative/genitive singular (e.g. from/of) or >> nominative/accusative plural ([many] yogis, either as a subject >> or an object of the sentence), depending on the context. >> > > Thanks for weighing in, Card. As I said, I'm > not questioning the idea of Sanskrit being a > cool language, just the idea of it being a > cool "intermediate" language for translation > because of its "unambiguous nature." Literally > everything I have ever read about it mentioned > that it was one of the *most* ambiguous lang- > uages on the planet. > > Ambiguity *is* the issue when it comes to trans- > lation, whether by humans or by software. It's > captured in the classic example from English: > > "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like > a banana." > > This sentence only makes sense, even in English, > once you have "parsed" it and realized that the > words "flies" and "like" have very different > meanings in one phrase than they do in the other. > *As I understand it*, that is the problem with > Sanskrit, and in spades. Each word has *many* > meanings; as Vaj puts it, not just "double > entendre" but "multiple entendre." Thus it is > hard for me to conceive of it as a suitable > language with which to address the many problems > of machine language translation. > > As for the website Bhairitu pointed to, all that > you have to do to see its True Believer nature > is to do a mental "search and replace" on the > text in it and replace every mention of "Sanskrit" > with "Hebrew." Then you'll see what the site is > really about. > > It's attempting to present a case for learning > Sanskrit based on its supposedly spiritual nature, > and its supposed status as the "mother of all > languages." Sanskrit may *be* both. For all I > know, God, all the gods and goddesses and angels > sit around discussing Monday Night Football in > Sanskrit, because it's the most suitable lang- > uage for doing so. Maybe it even has magical > abilities to heal the sick and raise the dead > and fix the game during Monday Night Football. > > I don't know, and I don't care. The only relevant > piece of information in this context is whether > it is an *unambiguous* language. Given a sentence > in Sanskrit, can that sentence be parsed one and > only one way? > > Everything I've ever heard is that the answer to > that question is a definitive "No." And that > unambiguous answer rules out Sanskrit as the > basis of an experiment in machine translation > that is based on the notion of that base lang- > uage being unambiguous. What else would Sanskrit scholars be looking at if it wasn't spiritual texts, Turq? That seems to be the only stuff that survived. Maybe if you learn Sanskrit and maybe Pali while you're at it you can go do some digs in India and see if you can find any texts from the sports section
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu 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. > > I love Sanskrit, but not because I'd think it's unambiguous. > Just as a simple example, the inflectional form 'yoginaH' could > be either ablative/genitive singular (e.g. from/of) or > nominative/accusative plural ([many] yogis, either as a subject > or an object of the sentence), depending on the context. Thanks for weighing in, Card. As I said, I'm not questioning the idea of Sanskrit being a cool language, just the idea of it being a cool "intermediate" language for translation because of its "unambiguous nature." Literally everything I have ever read about it mentioned that it was one of the *most* ambiguous lang- uages on the planet. Ambiguity *is* the issue when it comes to trans- lation, whether by humans or by software. It's captured in the classic example from English: "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." This sentence only makes sense, even in English, once you have "parsed" it and realized that the words "flies" and "like" have very different meanings in one phrase than they do in the other. *As I understand it*, that is the problem with Sanskrit, and in spades. Each word has *many* meanings; as Vaj puts it, not just "double entendre" but "multiple entendre." Thus it is hard for me to conceive of it as a suitable language with which to address the many problems of machine language translation. As for the website Bhairitu pointed to, all that you have to do to see its True Believer nature is to do a mental "search and replace" on the text in it and replace every mention of "Sanskrit" with "Hebrew." Then you'll see what the site is really about. It's attempting to present a case for learning Sanskrit based on its supposedly spiritual nature, and its supposed status as the "mother of all languages." Sanskrit may *be* both. For all I know, God, all the gods and goddesses and angels sit around discussing Monday Night Football in Sanskrit, because it's the most suitable lang- uage for doing so. Maybe it even has magical abilities to heal the sick and raise the dead and fix the game during Monday Night Football. I don't know, and I don't care. The only relevant piece of information in this context is whether it is an *unambiguous* language. Given a sentence in Sanskrit, can that sentence be parsed one and only one way? Everything I've ever heard is that the answer to that question is a definitive "No." And that unambiguous answer rules out Sanskrit as the basis of an experiment in machine translation that is based on the notion of that base lang- uage being unambiguous.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu 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. > I love Sanskrit, but not because I'd think it's unambiguous. Just as a simple example, the inflectional form 'yoginaH' could be either ablative/genitive singular (e.g. from/of) or nominative/accusative plural ([many] yogis, either as a subject or an object of the sentence), depending on the context.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > >> TurquoiseB wrote: > >>> 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. Here's the complete Briggs NASA article: http://www.gosai.com/science/sanskrit-nasa.html This is also a pro-Sanskrit site, but it reproduces the original article rather than paraphrasing it, and there appears to be much less in the way of TB-stuff in it (I haven't read it, just cast an eye over it). Here's the abstract: In the past twenty years, much time, effort, and money has been expended on designing an unambiguous representation of natural languages to make them accessible to computer processing. These efforts have centered around creating schemata designed to parallel logical relations with relations expressed by the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which are clearly cumbersome and ambiguous in their function as vehicles for the transmission of logical data. Understandably, there is a widespread belief that natural languages are unsuitable for the transmission of many ideas that artificial languages can render with great precision and mathematical rigor. But this dichotomy, which has served as a premise underlying much work in the areas of linguistics and artificial intelligence, is a false one. There is at least one language, Sanskrit, which for the duration of almost 1000 years was a living spoken language with a considerable literature of its own. Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millenia old. > > 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. The Briggs article seems to be the seminal one of this kind. > Again, I've studied the language, you haven't. It > is like you are reviewing a movie you haven't > actually seen.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
TurquoiseB wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > >> TurquoiseB wrote: >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu 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. Again, I've studied the language, you haven't. It is like you are reviewing a movie you haven't actually seen. Look it was over ten years ago when I read all this stuff including a newsletter article from the Institute which if I recall right mentioned some research or translation engines that used Sanskrit. I don't have those articles at my fingertips nor have the time to research them but from my study of Sanskrit I stand by my claim that or the veracity of the idea. And only that. So that isn't to say it was researched and not found satisfactory or that some other methods for intermediate engines were found to be more successful. And I don't think the TB'ers convinced NASA of anything. The people that run the Institute are interested in making Sanskrit easy to learn. What spiritual organization do they represent? I don't recall them being connected to any specific organization so how could they be TB'ers? I also never recall from what I've seen on comparative linguistics that Sanskrit was ambiguous. You were probably seeing an ambiguity that was cause
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu 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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
TurquoiseB wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu 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. Unlike you, I have studied Sanskrit so I have seen the veracity in the concept. And Sanskrit is thought to be an engineered language. There are other languages like Korean which were also engineered. English is a mongrel language having many different roots and is ambiguous as hell plus so many words that use way outdated non-phonetic spellings. I suspect that in the next 50 years, due to the internet, a world language will evolve and English itself may become more phonetic in it's spellings.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
On Jan 20, 2009, at 5:55 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: 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. Well a lot of these are his presumptive meanings. I'm not sure that he is always certain how they really are meant to be translated. No offense intended to Card, but a lot of them are just his sharing his brainstorming process (which is interesting in and of itself) but not all of them hit their target. Keep in mind all Sanskrit words are based on monosyllabic roots. Since each syllable can potentially have different meanings, essentially it's the perfectly crafted language for not just double entendre, as in English or European poetry, but for multiple entendre. Interesting to me is "Enochian" the angelic language discovered by Queen Elizabeth I's personal astrologer, John Dee: it is remarkably similar to Sanskrit. It seems to me that Sanskrit is an anterior language to pure Dakini language. It very likely evolved out of a samadhic language and that's why it's been primarily preserved by the priest (Brahmin) caste of India.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
On Jan 20, 2009, at 5:55 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu 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. If you get a chance, check out the current PBS series "the story of India". A nice little section on the Sanskrit language in the first episode. The amazing part is the word roots and how they give rise to later European (Greek, Latin and Eastern European) words. They also explain, in terms of the initial migrations of peoples out of Africa, how and why this is the case. In a very real way, they make an argument for an actual "mother India" and mother of western culture and language. They also document the first westerners who encountered Sanskrit--and of course back then a "classical education include ones native tongue along with both Greek and Latin language--whom this connection dawned on. A lot of this early civilization occurred in what is now Pakistan. It's also the same area associated with the Buddhist Shambhala and Oddiyana.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu 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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > If you are willing to pay enough for "name and > > form," I might be able to get the Supremes to > > sing backup. > > > I'm in such a good mood today after hearing the Inaugural Speech of > your new President that I even r-e-a-d what The Turq wrote. > > I rarely do, and it was a mistake. > > This Turq, this miserable self-proclaimed Buddhist (though an amateur > in the fields of Knowledge and experience), forever stuck in the > sadness of his lost attempt for freedom due to his inherent laziness > and lack of focus, encountering in his early youth a real Yogi, > Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, forever drowned as it seems in the sea of self- > dispear and self-disgust, feeling sorry for himself in any bar, > rejected by yet another beautiful lady; will forever shower FFL and > many other forums with the bitterness of his soul, his lost > opportunities for Enlightenment. > > Perhaps today gave a new shape of things: away from the old, bitter > and cold fools of old into a New Beginning. Bush left in a helicopter > into the sky and Cheney was sent away in an ambulance. > > The Turq feels isolated, his bitterness and frowning upon Knowledge > outdated. Hillbillies of lesser caliber than Curties will continue to > court him, but Hillbillies are also of a dying race. > > The Age of Enlightenment is now. > > Some on FFL have suggested that in the Age of Enlightenment hardcore > anti-knowledge, bitter, hateful fellows like the Turq or Cheney of > the outgoing generation could have a problem in incarnating again > soon. > > What do you think ? > Since this is in the thread I started, I'll answer it. First off, Nabby, enjoy. Relax. Kick back. Laugh. Life's a blast. Life is bubbling bliss. Bubble some, eh? I'm not quite sure what the timing of the Age of Enlightenment is. I know that the official TMO website showed people flying in 2099. If there were slots for the birth of Cheney and Bush this first go around, I'm sure that there will be slots to go around again. Remember, one must be highly evolved to be powerful and there is powerful of good and powerful of evil. I found Turq's reply to me to be very humorous. Life and people and ourselves are so much easier to take when we appreciate the humor in all things.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:59 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "I am the eternal" > wrote: > > > > If you qualify, please contact me directly (my email account is > > real). > > > > I seek someone who can translate into Sanskrit and record President > > Obama's inauguration speech. If possible, the invocations > > translated into Sanskrit would help as well. > > > > Because of the enthusiasm of my betters here on FFL about Obama's > > speech, I've decided to alter the going home program I have from > > IA and replace the current Sanskrit chanting with the inauguration. > > There is obviously much more truth in the inauguration than in > > just some old chanting from the Vedas. > > > > Please quote hourly rate, estimated number of hours required to > > translate, the type of media the translation will be delivered on > > and cite references I can check on your previous translating gigs. > > Can we charge more for the translation if we > can get Aretha Franklin to do the chanting in > the recording? > > She's got a history with this sort of thing. > Remember Maharishi spending hours breaking down > the word Agni into its component letters and > sounds as A-G-N-I? > > R-E-S-P-E-C-T, right? 'Nuff said. > > If you are willing to pay enough for "name and > form," I might be able to get the Supremes to > sing backup. > Nobody remembers the big talk right here on FFL in 2004 when Tina Turner (now that was one babe) signed to play Shakti in The Goddess. It appears the movie never got filmed. Yes, I suspect Ms. Franklin chanting would be good. We'd have to also add in the Gay Abomonations Against Nature Choir and the Gay Bishop to appease the fag hags on FFL. That's one of the nice things about being considered a TB on FFL. You can get away with slams like that and not get called on them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > If you are willing to pay enough for "name and > form," I might be able to get the Supremes to > sing backup. I'm in such a good mood today after hearing the Inaugural Speech of your new President that I even r-e-a-d what The Turq wrote. I rarely do, and it was a mistake. This Turq, this miserable self-proclaimed Buddhist (though an amateur in the fields of Knowledge and experience), forever stuck in the sadness of his lost attempt for freedom due to his inherent laziness and lack of focus, encountering in his early youth a real Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, forever drowned as it seems in the sea of self- dispear and self-disgust, feeling sorry for himself in any bar, rejected by yet another beautiful lady; will forever shower FFL and many other forums with the bitterness of his soul, his lost opportunities for Enlightenment. Perhaps today gave a new shape of things: away from the old, bitter and cold fools of old into a New Beginning. Bush left in a helicopter into the sky and Cheney was sent away in an ambulance. The Turq feels isolated, his bitterness and frowning upon Knowledge outdated. Hillbillies of lesser caliber than Curties will continue to court him, but Hillbillies are also of a dying race. The Age of Enlightenment is now. Some on FFL have suggested that in the Age of Enlightenment hardcore anti-knowledge, bitter, hateful fellows like the Turq or Cheney of the outgoing generation could have a problem in incarnating again soon. What do you think ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit translator wanted
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "I am the eternal" wrote: > > If you qualify, please contact me directly (my email account is > real). > > I seek someone who can translate into Sanskrit and record President > Obama's inauguration speech. If possible, the invocations > translated into Sanskrit would help as well. > > Because of the enthusiasm of my betters here on FFL about Obama's > speech, I've decided to alter the going home program I have from > IA and replace the current Sanskrit chanting with the inauguration. > There is obviously much more truth in the inauguration than in > just some old chanting from the Vedas. > > Please quote hourly rate, estimated number of hours required to > translate, the type of media the translation will be delivered on > and cite references I can check on your previous translating gigs. Can we charge more for the translation if we can get Aretha Franklin to do the chanting in the recording? She's got a history with this sort of thing. Remember Maharishi spending hours breaking down the word Agni into its component letters and sounds as A-G-N-I? R-E-S-P-E-C-T, right? 'Nuff said. If you are willing to pay enough for "name and form," I might be able to get the Supremes to sing backup.
