> You didn’t have the wit to look it up, did you? It’s
> precisely about natural language, hence the phrase
> “natural language”. Duh!
Perhaps you're the one that needs to look it up. NLP has nothing to do with cracking the code of a non-computer language to determine the meaning of each symbol in that language. Rather, NLP assumes the "natural language" has already been decoded and understood by the linguistic experts, and NLP simply transcribes the syntax of that already-established language into a syntax that can be processed by a computer. Training in NLP does not qualify a person to be an authority on the non-computer language. An NLP expert is simply an expert in transcribing such an existing language to computer algorithms.
In other words, if an NLP expert attempts to transcribe into computer algorithm a language that hasn't quite been worked out yet (e.g., hieroglyphics), then as far as the computer transcription is concerned: garbage in, garbage out. It's far worse than what the "bag of words" model would predict using a well-characterized language, let alone the other problems with semantics, inferences, common sense, etc. Bottom line, NLP training relates to transcribing the meaning of a natural language (e.g., used for inter-human communication) to an artificial language (e.g., used in a computer) and does not make someone an authority on cracking the code of any natural language, per se.
Meanwhile, I'm wondering why Merrell felt the need to go into such detail about your own background on your behalf.
> Merely more of your stupid, ignorant bile
> and not worth my further attention.
And all the weaker and more logically bankrupt becomes your argument.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?