Re: Machine English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch.
- From: Marco van de Voort <marcov@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:44:51 +0000 (UTC)
On 2007-03-19, quas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <quas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 18, 11:43 am, Marco van de Voort <mar...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-03-18, Quas.co.ua <Q...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Machine English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch.
Some times ago one person from Den Mark gave a quote here,
about if make computers to understand English,
it will be found a person or persons who do not speak English.
Perhaps my observation about structures of languages close to English
from the point of view of formal (machine) analysis of texts written on
those languages.
Perhaps the closest to English is Dutch.
No, Frisian. However it might also be worth to study Dutch-German Saxon
dialects. English being effectively Anglo-Saxon (though both Dutch and
English have a truckload of French loanwords)
Well, I'm talking about
formal languages.
Well, than dump the natural ones.
If in Dutch official conversation may be found,
Frisian is an official language in the Netherlands (which is bilingual on
paper)
The trouble with such an approach will be what you define as operators.
Operators can be verbs, but also combinations of verbs and prepositions, and
there are many such. Guess the meaning of the operator wrong, and you might
not invert where necessary, or invert where not necessary.
No operators, only verbs, nouns, articles and features.
Of all of this builds a graph, which later transtes
by machine.
Since the verbs would probably be the main branching nodes in the tree,
they'd have the same function as operators in an mathematical expression.
Daenish is then the closest of the Scandinavian ones.
The problem is though, with all of these, that modern languages are already
an enormous mashup, and no longer "pure". IOW due to all their mixing over
15 centuries, such simple proximity isn't as simple anymore.
Well.
The words as "red" and "rouge" in English at the beginning
have the same origin.
Hmm, red is a colour and rouge is a form of makeup (which is usually red of
course). But the same word may have a different meaning in a different
language. Like "rouge" means a kind of makeup in English or Dutch, but "red"
in French.
Average human uses about hew hunreeds of words plus from few tens to few
thousands of proffessional. (Number of proffesional words depends of job.)
(IIRC I read somewhere that 30000 words is considered "native" level)
Please correct me if I'm wrong here. Also it is a measurable number of
expression forms. Which together define tradition and language.
Yes. I think you vastly underestimate both the idiom size, as multiple
meanings and the the power of context.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Machine English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch.
- From: Quas.co.ua
- Re: Machine English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch.
- References:
- Machine English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch.
- From: Quas.co.ua
- Re: Machine English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch.
- From: Marco van de Voort
- Re: Machine English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch.
- From: quas
- Machine English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch.
- Prev by Date: Re: Machine English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch.
- Next by Date: Re: Machine English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch.
- Previous by thread: Re: Machine English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch.
- Next by thread: Re: Machine English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|