From: Brian Wisti <brian@...>
Date: 2003-02-24T06:07:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Internationalization

On Sunday 23 February 2003 12:15 pm, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Brian Wisti wrote:
> > Is Esperanto or another auxiliary language practical?  You would
> > basically
>
> There seem to be many users of Esperanto, and they have a conference
> each year.  There is some literature written in it, and some
> esperanto-centric newspapers or journals, but I expect other
> auxilliary langauges could claim the same, as could Klingon and
> Tolkien Elvish enthusiasts, perhaps.  Esperanto has been criticised
> as being too European in flavour.  Lojban is supposed to have a
> grammar which YACC can handle.  Ido is descended from Esperanto but
> has fewer users, but is supposed to be more regular.  I don't know
> the current state of Volapuk.  People use these languages, so there
> is some practicality.
>
> > need one person (or team) in each language to learn Esperanto.  Is that
>
> I know some on this list already do, but that is why I emphaise
> automatic translation.  This (machine translation) is still difficult.

I've worked briefly at a company that prepared tools for translators.  My time 
there was short (several months of contract work), but long enough to get the 
idea that automated translation was not to be trusted.  For a real 
translation of ideas and idioms, a human brain was needed.  A human brain 
aided by their tools, of course ;-)

I looked quickly at Lojban and Esperanto sites.  Esperanto seems easier to 
learn from first glance.  You mentioned that people on this list were 
familiar with some of the artificial languages.  If they notice this 
exchange, I would love to hear from them about which might make the easiest 
to translate documentation to and from.

-Brian W


-- 
brian at coolnamehere dot com
http://coolnamehere.com