Re: [9fans] OT - Machine translation

[Boyd Roberts <boyd@strakt.com>]

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 commencée, et vous
    pourrait la signaler, et les gens pourraient-ils s'amuser
    et soumettre alors les corrections et le document pourrait-elle
    être améliorée de là sur une base évolutionnaire?

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.