From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!ncar!uchinews!spssig!markrose Thu Dec 26 23:58:38 EST 1991
Article 2410 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!ncar!uchinews!spssig!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Machine Translation (was re: Searle's respons
Message-ID: <1991Dec26.173657.37312@spss.com>
Date: 26 Dec 91 17:36:57 GMT
References: <1991Dec21.000014.6836@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Dec23.175207.37941@spss.com> <1991Dec23.193002.6900@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: SPSS, Inc.
Lines: 15
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com

In article <1991Dec23.193002.6900@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In the sense of radical translation (look it up in Quine), they can't
>translate anything.

Was Mr. Kohout talking about "radical translation"?  I think not.
By inserting your own definition of "translation" here, you're just
making puns.

>Translation depends on a mind.  Show me a machine translator, and I'll show
>you a text that would stymie it.

Of course you could, and so what?  Your claim was that machines can't 
translate.  An instance of a given machine failing to translate a given
text, or even a multiplication of such instances, has nothing to do with
that claim.  


