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