On 26/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You could try a machine translation, but if the
intended audience don't
understand the article because it's badly translated you've achieved
nothing. That's why we don't do it. It is worse than nothing, because it can
confuse the reader.
Mgm
Stating the entire situation in terms of possible bad effects is a bit
misleading. I have friends who are researchers in the area of machine
translation and yes, they say its not the best, but saying that a
possible confusion is worse than nothing is a personal view on it. If
they realise that half of the article was not translated well, but
they gain something from the other half I would assume they got
something out of it despite confusion.
In saying that some confusion is worse than nothing you underestimate
human abilities.
Peter Ansell