Mark E. Shoulson
mark at kli.org
Sat Oct 23 21:11:44 CDT 2021
Seriously, no ulterior motive. Just that it is my (limited)
understanding that they are used by people with various cognitive issues
that make it difficult for them to communicate via more usual language.
So they're a way of talking that _sort of_ isn't associated with a
language... but really all that means is they comprise a "language" of
their own, just one that perhaps is unlike most others. I accept that I
might be mistaken about how they are used.
On 10/22/21 17:43, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
> I wonder why you have brought up Blissymbols.
> Michael Everson
>> On 22 Oct 2021, at 21:52, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:
>> On 10/22/21 12:17, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2021 3:40 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
>>>> If I recall correctly, someone has proved that "fully automatic high-quality translation" is AI-hard. Meaning that it's basically the same as making a fully aware, human-intelligence AI. Now, that probably depends a lot on the details of "high-quality." There are probably sentences and texts one could cook up that a would-be translator would need arbitrarily good understanding of the context, situation, shared cultural memories and references, etc etc for, and I guess that would be what the "proof" was about.
>>> Sentences that require some understanding of the meaning for a successful translation, even if you only consider factual accuracy, are not hard to come by: they do prop up regularly.
>> Yeah, you're right. I was wrong to imply (or think) that it only mattered in rarefied corner cases. You give some fun examples of languages that don't mesh because they encode different information, and I'm sure a lot of us could come up with more. That makes any kind of language-independent representation difficult or impossible—if used or envisioned as a translation intermediate or codes "equivalent" to some sentence (because sentences may not be capable of being equivalent.) You can use it on its own to express concepts in its own way, but at that point it isn't a translation intermediate, nor even language-independent, but is a language in its own way (see Blissymbolics, which, fair warning, I really hardly know anything about, so maybe you shouldn't see them.)
>>>> It seems to me that that does have farther to take us, and we'll probably see a lot more improvement, but it can only take us so far. Then again, "so far" might be far enough. If you have a translator whose results are semantically satisfactory, say, 97% of the time, and sound only a little awkwardnessful to a native speaker in the target language... well, customers' standards may be willing to duck a little.
>>> There's a level of "quality" that equates to "a human looking at the translation can guess what might have been in the original".
>> And it is over-optimistic to expect the level I expressed any time soon, yes.
More information about the Unicode