From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <001e01c1fb3a$07fed260$fdffa8c0@itic.ca>
From: <plan9@itic.ca>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <20020514074329.XGJ7966.mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.55.38.49]> <3CE0DA59.CD735BE2@strakt.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] OT -  Machine translation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 06:25:20 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 90b23230-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Hi all,

Just to let you know about our experience of computer aided translations :

We have tried many of them... now we contract translators. The quality of
any translation fairly depends on 2 major factors : the first one is the
``style'' of the author. As soon as non regular syntax or idioms are used,
the translator process gets crazy. The second one is the lexical field. Some
translators are computing aware when others are not.

As an example, Russian requires a russian IT guy. Even a very youg one is ok
!!! French requires someone that is particulary confident with both grammar
and syntax since vocabulary is almost ``frenglish'', sometimes even english.
German has a very [excessively] structured syntax (software are almost good
for that) but you need a GermandictionnaryguythatspeekconstructedITwords :-)

Korean is the one I prefer :-) You need a korean guy, a korean dictionnary,
a US kbd, some korean pictures and some scotch tape... :-) The guy need to
type 4 keys to generate one Rune :-(  [and he only drinks tea]

In a very few words,

If you puting are that on you page translation were computated generates,
Not I am going to read her ...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Boyd Roberts" <boyd@strakt.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: [9fans] OT - Machine translation


Andrew Simmons wrote:
>
> I think Boyd is being a bit harsh on machine translations. I don't know
what
> Google uses, but I feel that their translations into English achieve a
> certain sublime poetry.

Strangely enough google generates the same text as bablefish:

    Pourquoi est-ce que pas le babelfish d'utilisation
    (http://babelfish.altavista.com/) une sorte de version
    d'alpha d'une traduction obtiennent commenc�e, et vous
    pourrait la signaler, et les gens pourraient-ils s'amuser
    et soumettre alors les corrections et le document pourrait-elle
    �tre am�lior�e de l� sur une base �volutionnaire?

Although it is interesting to speculate how the translation was done.

To quote from their translation FAQ:

    Unfortunately, today's most sophisticated software doesn't
    approach the fluency of a native speaker or possess the
    skill of a professional translator. Automatic translation
    is very difficult, as the meaning of words depends upon the
    context in which they are used. Because of this, accurate
    translation requires an understanding of context, as well
    as an understanding of the structure and rules of a language.
    While many engineers and linguists are working on the problem,
    it will be some time before anyone can offer a quick and seamless
    translation experience. In the interim, we hope the service
    we provide is useful for most purposes.

I couldn't agree more.

Once the context is lost the semantic content has usually been destroyed.