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