[net.nlang] Latin Non Loglan Est

don@allegra.UUCP (10/04/83)

Oddly enough, Latin was used in an early experiment in automatic
language translation.  I had a good bit of Latin in high school (gives
you a hint at how old I am!), and I can assure you it completely
sucks!  It is highly irregular, and has a very limited vocabulary.
Even during Roman times, Greek was used to discuss philosophy.  Latin
is better suited for speeches and talking about military tactics.  In
short, Latin is not a logical language.

laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (10/08/83)

I think that you need a better Latin teacher. Latin does *not* have an
impoverished vocabulary, and it is *not* irregular. It is not, however,
unambiguous. here is a typical first declension noun.

	Nom: 	puella	puellae
	Gen:	puellae	puellarum
	Dat:	puellae	puellis
	Acc:	puellam puellas
	Voc:	puella	puellae
	Abl:	puella	puellis

Now, in case you are wondering why Dative and Ablative are not
collapsed into each other it is because there are several declensions
of nouns, and it just so happens that they are the same in this
declension. But all first declension nouns have the same endings.

Given that nearly all of the scientific and relgious writing of
the later rennaisance and middle ages was done in Latin, it is a
bit foolish to say that the language is impoverished, is it not?

However, translation is difficult. Anybody who wants to dispute this
can come up to Toronto where i am dilligently trying to translate
various Church pronouncements of the 15th century. I would sure love
to take lessons from someone who finds it *easy* since I find it
*very difficult*...

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura