cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> atul.seth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Could you elaborate the concept of programmable
> > language with an example. I am not familiar
> with
> > this but am aware that many other researchers
> have
> > said the same about Sanskrit.
>
> "Programmable" may not be the best description.
> Certainly it appears to share some characteristics
> of computer language. Programming logic is a sort
> of flow chart with the "language" itself guiding
> the logic. This is extremely simple compared to
> how the ancient language worked though the logic
> itself is complex (for most of us). The ancient
> language, while relatively simple, could only be
> translated into modern language with a logic chart
> as direct translation isn't really possible. Keep
> in mind that ancient language couldn't really be
> misunderstood. If a listener didn't understand it
> then it would sound like gobbledty gook; it would
> be like seeing only half of a flow chart: There
> are words but they make no sense.
>
> Programming languages use only a few words where
> the ancient language employed some 10,000 words.
> Each word had a single definition like computer
> language. Computer language directs the program
> to a conclusion rather than merely stating a
> conclusion and ancient language did this as well.
> Words were used to direct the listener to a
> meaning that existed in context. Programming
> words are "real". They are symbols for the
> operation they perform. So to were the ancient
> words. When we say "tree" it might mean anything
> but more importantly the word doesn't represent a
> tree but rather the concept of a tree. When
> ancient language used "tree" no operation could be
> performed by the sentence that couldn't be
> performed on a real tree. The words were all real
> and literal which is like computer language.
>
> I may have drifted into semantics a little but I
> think the chief way the ancient language is like
> computer language is just the same type of
> thinking is required to understand it and generate
> it. It is logic based and requires more thinking
> to compose utterances that aren't within the realm
> of habit. Like computer language ancient language
> crammed 10 pounds of meaning is a 3 lb bag.

Thanks for the clarification. I noted the following:

1.Ancient languages were based on a complex underlying logic that is unknown and quite different from modern languages which are artificial assignment of words to objects/phenomena.
2.They had a finite set of unique words
3.Each word had a specific meaning
4.There was a special logical relationship between the word and its meaning almost as if the word and the
meaning are the same.

I believe and you might agree that there is a lot still to understand about the ancient languages and more questions which need answers.We need to also consider the alphabet size dimension and how it affects word meaning & vocabulary size.I feel this is an important issue.

>
> I believe there are people smart enough to adapt
> this system for use in computers but I'm not one
> of them.
>
> I'm very interested in your other comments or
> questions.

I do have some points to discuss about ancient languages hopefully which may lead to additional understanding and clarity and also more questions which i will take up in the previous post to maintain continuity.