Superiority do not applies to language! Languages serve speakers purposes, and these are only different. But all depends on speakers and culture needs. Which language would we use as the pattern, should we insist on so-called superiority?

Hullo Adial, what I meant was not about language's superiority over other languages. I meant SUPERIORITY IN TERMS OF EXPRESSIBILITY. Simply, it means Can You Find One LANGUAGE which has more expressive power over others?

i won't use the concept of "superiority" but of "resourcefulness" and then i will respond with a "yes". it's not just a matter of linguistic tools but, syntactic pr semantic ofr example, but of culture during the years of a developement of a language, and the history of a country. A language is the mirror of a country, community and culture.

I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find one language that has more expressibility than other languages. One reason for this is that expressibility (or expressiveness) itself can mean many different things. Would we be referring to expressiveness of emotion or of information? Would the expressiveness "score" for a language include the impact of that expressiveness on listeners and readers? How would the culture of the people who speak a given language influence perceptions of expressiveness? At this point, I think the best we can say is that particular languages might have different kinds of expressive characteristics, but not a superiority of expressiveness over other languages.

Quite often you will find new words in almost every fresh edition of the OXFORD English Dictionary. Slowly, but steadily, English as a language is gathering more vocabulary from other languages.

Now, an issue to ponder upon is that English language is the most convenient tool for communication today. Almost every research paper is published in this language. Research work is meant to be shared if we want mutual progress, and so we are communicating conveniently in English. But apart from the peers, are we doing justice to the society? Can you count the number of people in the world who understands English? Some talented guys are there, and you will surely come to know more of them nearby you, who doesn't know English. Do they have no right to contribute to the mainstream research?

Thus, there is urgent need to build a MT system that will short circuit the gap between the communicated and the deprived.

Do you think language-to-language MT will solve this problem? If so, up to how much extent? As there is this issue of "RESOURCEFULNESS" (as suggested by Petra), what do you think of one-to-one mapping in word level translation? Regarding language EXPRESSION, by what factor will alignment of units help you during MT? What about the "EMOTION / INFORMATION" score as suggested by Richard and about the impact of expressiveness or on intended perception after MT?

One final question: HOW MANY PEOPLE AND WHAT SECTION OF THE SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM INTER-LINGUAL MT?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional:

Communication translates to information sharing and then to knowledge. Please ponder upon for a minute on why do we communicate and on to whom we communicate? Also think of the different roles we play during a communication session: as a member of a family, as a teacher, as an employee, as a scholar, etc. and think of the actual need for MT.

Now, think of why we want MT: knowledge mining?, just communication sake?, comprehending a piece of literary/scientific work in a foreign language? understanding international political issue(s)? criminal investigation?

Now, what do you think: MT is important for the major section of the society, or for some few professional section of the society? Where is the current MT work leading to, or where will it lead to?

It is not a matter of superiority, but complexity; and due we can understand language as a formal construction of identity mediated by history, culture, context and social relationships; I have a strong doubt about we could determine that complexity in terms of a singular scale.