Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uicsl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!morgan From: morgan@uicsl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: Re: Sanskrit Message-ID: <12300003@uicsl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Oct-84 20:37:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uicsl.12300003 Posted: Mon Oct 8 20:37:00 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Oct-84 04:39:17 EDT References: <12582@sri-arpa.UUCP> Lines: 46 Nf-ID: #R:sri-arpa:-1258200:uicsl:12300003:000:1810 Nf-From: uicsl!morgan Oct 8 19:37:00 1984 xx Some observations and a question: 1. My local Sanskrit expert tells me the language your are referring to is not Sastric Sanskrit, but an artificial language derived from it by philosophers. Sastric Sanskrit was a natural language, with ambiguity and syntax. The artificial language was intentionally designed to have the properties you mentioned, more or less as modern logicians invent artificial languages that have some properties of natural languages. One could (in principle) do the same for English, if one had the same talents as the Indians you mention. 2. It is not clear whether the ubiquitous ambiguity (!!) of real natural languages is a reflection of something fundamental about the human mind, or just the inevitable result of the immense complexity of human grammars. After all, even syntactically trivial languages like pascal can have ambiguity problems. 3. There is no system of measurement that allows us to rank natural languages in expressive power. There do not seem to be any languages with any kind of expressive deficit. There are no primitive languages unless you count made-up languages (including pidgins) and languages that are in the final stages of extinction (i.e. nobody really counts as a native speaker any more). English is neither more nor less efficient than any other language for "transmitting logical data". 4. It is certainly interesting (though not all that unusual) if the Sastric scholars were using theories that are considered modern. I'd appreciate it if you'd send me a copy of your paper setting forth their theories. 5. If the language you describe can be used with such ease, clarity, facility, etc., why is it so hard for Sanskrit scholars to translate? J. Morgan Dept. of Linguistics U. of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 uicsl!morgan