[YG Conlang Archives] > [Latejami group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
"rexxia" <grecchia@hidden.email> wrote: > > Therefore, it seems that even though a full-on English-to-Latejami > translation program would be impossible, a "constrained > English"-to-Latejami translation program that **only handled the > subset of English sentences that the Latejami-to-English program could > produce as output** would be much more tractable. > This approach is widely used by multinational corporations for translating documents to different languages. If you want more information, google for "controlled languages". > > Your work is fantastic, and could one day go a long way towards > helping people bridge the language barrier. > Thanks, but I think you're being overly optimistic. For me, this is just a hobby. MorphemeAddict@hidden.email wrote: > > What were the problems that you ran into? > My basic problem was poorly designed data structures. They were not flexible enough. And since data structures are the very foundation of a complex software design, almost the entire thing will have to be rewritten. > > How will the language need to be changed to overcome them? > What I said was wrong. The language changes that I'm thinking about have nothing to do with the data structure problem. It's just a matter of personal taste. I would like to eliminate all prefixes, converting them to suffixes instead, and allow the order of suffix placement to determine the semantics. As it is now, suffixes are always analyzed in a fixed order regardless of their order in a word. Regards, Rick Morneau http://www.eskimo.com/~ram