To be clear, I wasn't attributing anything to you: I wasn't saying that either you or Briggs mentioned other languages; I was just describing the fact that the

To be clear, I wasn't attributing anything to you: I wasn't saying that either you or Briggs mentioned other languages; I was just describing the fact that the Navya-Nyāya language was designed to reduce the ambiguities that natural Sanskrit has, like all natural languages — sorry if that wasn't clear. As for the other part, consider what this NN language was designed for: to give precise definitions and statements, for use in debate, dialectic, etc. While it is plausible that some of these properties could make it suitable for similar purposes on a computer too, it also had other constraints (designed for humans, had to be grammatical Sanskrit, etc). How likely do you think it is that it can be much better than anything that could be designed for computers, without those constraints? Besides, if it were so optimized for computers it would be slightly worse for its actual purpose of human communication in debates. Have you considered the fact that Briggs does not claim so in his paper either?