Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!mephisto!mcnc!ecsvax.uncecs.edu!uncmed!calico!unccab From: unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: voice interfaces and languages Message-ID: <166@uncmed.med.unc.edu> Date: 21 Feb 90 18:24:33 GMT References: Sender: news@uncmed.med.unc.edu Reply-To: unccab@uncmed.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) Followup-To: sci.lang Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine Lines: 34 In article urban%rcc@RAND.ORG ("Michael Urban/fdfTo:") writes: >Even if this were the appropriate forum, which is dubious, it seems >unproductive to argue the technical merits of Esperanto versus Papiamento (or >Loglan, or creoles, or Ido, or Interlingua, or Sindarin, or ...) as an I submit that followups be directed to sci.lang in which one will probably be slightly singed for re-hashing this old argument in that forum :-) >I suppose that trying to relate this discussion to future computing is entirely >in vain, but I will observe again that the only language that real people are >going to want to use to talk to their voice-typewriters or voice-mail systems >is their native language; Which was my point entirely, in response to contention that voice input would be too difficult because not everyone spoke the same language that he does. Ergo, I responded that voice interpretation and translation software would bypass this problem. >but the machine will still have to handle >the native tongues or else it will just be a laboratory curiosity. As the current voice-input devices are currently; interesting, but too expensive and non-versatile for common use. Charles Balan UNCCAB@med.unc.edu , UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp , UNCCAB@unc.bitnet %%%%%%%%%%%%% A Witty Saying Proves Nothing - Voltaire %%%%%%%%%%%%