Linux at the end of the world (our 2012 predictions) [LWN.net]

Linux at the end of the world (our 2012 predictions)

Posted Jan 4, 2012 14:13 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1)
In reply to: Linux at the end of the world (our 2012 predictions) by amit
Parent article: Linux at the end of the world (our 2012 predictions)

Not being a Kannada speaker, I clearly didn't write that myself. I had to rely on Google translate, which can be used to get back to something close to the original intent...

to post comments

Linux at the end of the world (our 2012 predictions)

Posted Jan 4, 2012 17:29 UTC (Wed) by wookey (guest, #5501) [Link] (6 responses)

Fascinating that google translates its own nonsense back much more understandably than a native speaker.

Linux at the end of the world (our 2012 predictions)

Posted Jan 4, 2012 21:13 UTC (Wed) by job (guest, #670) [Link] (5 responses)

Google Translate is absolutely useless for anything else than producing blank stares and/or giggles at the receiving end. At least with a reasonable dictionary you can piece together one word at a time and give a better chance of guessing the intended meaning.

In order to get a feeling what Translate produces, try using it on closed loop of languages (ie. going back to your native) and see. That's roughly what you intend to send. (Yes, I've received auto translated texts more than one time. The first time I could at least have a good laugh about it.)

Unfortunately it's not so simple...

Posted Jan 4, 2012 21:38 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (3 responses)

In order to get a feeling what Translate produces, try using it on closed loop of languages (ie. going back to your native) and see.

This is deeply flawed idea.

That's roughly what you intend to send.

Not really. Every translation loses piece of original. No matter who does it. After few translations you can get entirely different text. If you are doing machine translation then it'll lose some of the original meaning and get some random noise instead. If it's human translation then it'll keep about the same amount of original but the rest will not be a random nose - it'll include personality of people who did the translation.

The great example is the tale of "Ein Gleiches" which was translated in 1902 to Japanese, then in 1911 to French and then shortly after that back to German.

Original:
Über allen Gipfeln
Ist Ruh'
In allen Wipfeln
Spürest Du
Kaum einen Hauch;
Die Vögelein schweigen im Walde
Warte nur, balde
Ruhest Du auch.

Tranlation of translation of translation:
Stille ist im Pavillon aus Jade
Krähen fliegen stumm
Zu beschneiten Kirschbäumen im Mondlicht.
Ich sitze
Und weine.

The very fact that the last German translator had no idea that he's back-translating quite famous work of Goethe should say you something...

Unfortunately it's not so simple...

Posted Jan 5, 2012 12:11 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] (2 responses)

Asbolutely, the perfect translation does not exist unless the target language is a pure transcription of the source. But those theoretical exercises are far from what Google Translate produces, which is often unparseable to a native speaker and you would be hard pressed to even guess at the intent of the original text.

A reasonably intelligent human with a dictionary fares much better. Your German example, while being a clear example of the difficulties involved, is still parseble in the end.

Unfortunately it's not so simple...

Posted Jan 8, 2012 20:52 UTC (Sun) by csawtell (guest, #986) [Link] (1 responses)

I can't agree with the above with reference to Google Translate in Spanish to English translations. My experience is that the English result is perfectly readable. My immediate reaction was "Goodness me, this seems to actually work". From time to time, the result might be a bit stilted, but still perfectly readable and understandable. I was very surprised.

Unfortunately it's not so simple...

Posted Jan 9, 2012 20:29 UTC (Mon) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

I get the impression that machine translation is still one of those cases where the results are highly variable. It's better when languages are more closely related and where they've put more effort into manually tuning the results. So a pair of reasonably closely related languages that get translated between a lot, like English and Spanish, are likely to produce much better results than two languages from different language groups, like English and Japanese, or a rarely translated pair, like Scots and Faroese.

Linux at the end of the world (our 2012 predictions)

Posted Jan 18, 2012 1:06 UTC (Wed) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

FWIW, Google-translated "English" signs seem to be a popular thing in China, apparently become "English" lettering is seen as hip even for people without a clue what the words actually say, with the often comical results.

This has become one of several regularly reoccurring themes on languagelog, which I discovered about a year ago and immediately added a feed subscription to my feed-reader for.

Easy to remember version http://languagelog.com , tho that redirects to languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu (University of Pennsylvania Language department hosts, but a number of linguists regularly contribute including Victor Mair, the specialist in the various forms of Chinese).

I find the language debates there generally pleasant and often fascinating and/or entertaining diversion from the world of freedomware technology that I otherwise spend so much time in. =:^)

Duncan

Linux at the end of the world (our 2012 predictions)

Posted Jan 10, 2012 0:16 UTC (Tue) by sumanah (guest, #59891) [Link]

My parents would be ashamed to see me sounding out the Kannada letter by letter, but they might be grimly amused that I at least got "ಚೀಲ" ("cheela" or "bag"). In any case, it was a nice frill to see Kannada in my LWN. Thanks. :-)

Signed, a US-born daughter of Kannadiga parents