[en] I just want to go on the record saying this: Esperanto sucks! I don't mind if people write in French or German because the machine translation provided by Systran seems to be quite sufficient to understand conversations. Japanese is fine, especially if people spell out most of the kanji in hiragana, because that way I might be able to put my junior high school level Japanese to use. But there does not seem to be any automatic translation service for Esperanto.
[fr] Je veux juste aller sur le disque indiquant ceci: L'espéranto suce! Je ne m'occupe pas de si les gens écrivent en français, Allemand parce que la traduction automatique fournie par Systran semble être tout à fait suffisante pour comprendre des conversations. Le Japonais est très bien, particulièrement si les gens définissent le kanji dans les hiragana. Mais il ne semble pas y avoir aucun service de traduction automatique pour l'espéranto.
[de] Ich möchte gerade auf die Aufzeichnung gehen, die dieses sagt: Esperanto saugt! Ich kümmere mich nicht, um wenn Leute auf französisch schreiben, Deutscher, weil die maschinelle Übersetzung, die von Systran zur Verfügung gestellt wird, scheint, ziemlich genügend zu sein, Gespräche zu verstehen. Japaner ist fein, besonders wenn Leute aus dem Kanji in den Hiragana buchstabieren. Aber es scheint, kein automatische Übersetzung Service für Esperanto geben.
-- Tim Starling.
Tim-
[en] I just want to go on the record saying this: Esperanto sucks!
I will go on the record saying this: There is a world language, and its name is English. Can we please stick to it in conversations? It has the additional advantage that it keeps the French out.
In return, it would be nice if Americans could finally adopt the metric system.
Thanks,
Erik
PS: Hey, with the Mother Teresa flamewar over, we need to talk about something, right?
Erik Moeller wrote:
Tim-
[en] I just want to go on the record saying this: Esperanto sucks!
I will go on the record saying this: There is a world language, and its name is English. Can we please stick to it in conversations? It has the additional advantage that it keeps the French out.
In return, it would be nice if Americans could finally adopt the metric system.
We'll adopt the metric system as soon as the British do, which is to say you'll probably be waiting a while. =D
(This means not having speed limits in miles/hour, beer in pints, and peoples' weights on the BBC News in stones).
On a mildly more on-topic note, there was some discussion earlier of some sort of automatic translation of units based on user preferences (kg/lbs, degrees F / degrees C, mi/km, etc.). Did anything ever come of that? Despite the obvious convenience of using metric as a standard, currently a fairly large percentage of English speakers would have to convert the units to make sense of them (the ~300 million Americans form a fairly decent percentage of English speakers), so using the old "standard" units for them makes some sense.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
On a mildly more on-topic note, there was some discussion earlier of some sort of automatic translation of units based on user preferences (kg/lbs, degrees F / degrees C, mi/km, etc.). Did anything ever come of that? Despite the obvious convenience of using metric as a standard, currently a fairly large percentage of English speakers would have to convert the units to make sense of them (the ~300 million Americans form a fairly decent percentage of English speakers), so using the old "standard" units for them makes some sense.
The problem would be one of context. You don't want "3-mile Island" to be converted! The simple solution is to *always* link to an Orde of Magnitude page, which gives links to converters.
Besides, * most people are at least familiar with the basic units of the SI system, * Americans may have trouble visualising, say "15 metres". But frankly, *WHO* can visualize "Lake Titicaca has a volume of 300,000,000 litres?
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 06:06:49PM +0100, tarquin wrote:
Delirium wrote:
On a mildly more on-topic note, there was some discussion earlier of some sort of automatic translation of units based on user preferences
[...]
The problem would be one of context. You don't want "3-mile Island" to be converted!
Unlikely.
<wiki>My tool is [[unit:inch:12.4]] long.</wiki>
Renders "My tool is 12.4 inch long." and "My tool is 29.88 cm long.", depeding on my settings. (With natural IQ, like write 23.5 km instead of 2350000 cm, etc.)
Syntax was just an example, not even a suggestion.
But frankly, *WHO* can visualize "Lake Titicaca has a volume of 300,000,000 litres?
Easy. Just imagine 500 billion glass of beer...
:-)
grin
ps: ...which reminds me to write an international beer-to-lake converter...
Peter Gervai wrote:
<wiki>My tool is [[unit:inch:12.4]] long.</wiki>
Renders "My tool is 12.4 inch long." and "My tool is 29.88 cm long.", depeding on my settings. (With natural IQ, like write 23.5 km instead of 2350000 cm, etc.)
Syntax was just an example, not even a suggestion.
Two points (which have already been raised): 1. articles should be easy to write. Minimize complex markup.
2. How can a machine tell what level of accuracy is needed? Eg: "A cat is an animal about a foot long" "A cat is an animal about 30cm long." You don't want the decimals!
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 02:34:00PM +0000, tarquin wrote:
<wiki>My tool is [[unit:inch:12.4]] long.</wiki>
Renders "My tool is 12.4 inch long." and "My tool is 29.88 cm long.", depeding on my settings. (With natural IQ, like write 23.5 km instead of 2350000 cm, etc.)
Syntax was just an example, not even a suggestion.
Two points (which have already been raised):
- articles should be easy to write. Minimize complex markup.
Markup is like chocolate: you're not forced to use it. Others will gladly fix it up after you. (eg. eat your chocolate.)
But, point taken.
- How can a machine tell what level of accuracy is needed?
Eg: "A cat is an animal about a foot long" "A cat is an animal about 30cm long." You don't want the decimals!
I can create markup as complex as you just want to be. Decimals surely a possible optional part (like, erm, let's say, [[unit:<measure>.<integer precision>:<measure>]] like [[unit:inch.-2:199]] would become "200 inch" and "280 cm", respectively, rounded to closest 10 (10^2) and [[unit:inch.2:199]] "199 inch" and "282.58 cm"). No, it's not user friendly at all. Maybe it worths thinking about it.
If one deperately needed there could be a "the damned cat is about [[unit:verbal:30cm|a foot]] long" form, giving metric and english measures in text form.
Still I'm not satisfied with my own idea, oh well...
grin
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .
[27.10.03: grin@tolna.net]
<wiki>My tool is [[unit:inch:12.4]] long.</wiki>
Renders "My tool is 12.4 inch long." and "My tool is 29.88 cm long.", depeding on my settings. (With natural IQ, like write 23.5 km instead of 2350000 cm, etc.)
Syntax was just an example, not even a suggestion.
"The cat is <unit>30 cm</unit> long in the average" may be a better syntax, especially because it's easier to add after an article is written.
The other way would be to use SI metrics only ;-) __ . / / / / ... Till Westermayer - till we *) . . . mailto:till@tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072 . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179 . . . . .
erik_moeller@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) writes:
I will go on the record saying this: There is a world language, and its name is English. Can we please stick to it in conversations?
+1
In return, it would be nice if Americans could finally adopt the metric system.
+1
Is it only me who receives some(?) messages of the wikipedia-l mailing list twice? (No, I'm not subcribed to wikien-l!)
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 02:03:57PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
[de] Ich möchte gerade auf die Aufzeichnung gehen, die dieses sagt: Esperanto saugt! Ich kümmere mich nicht, um wenn Leute auf französisch schreiben, Deutscher, weil die maschinelle Übersetzung, die von Systran zur Verfügung gestellt wird, scheint, ziemlich genügend zu sein, Gespräche zu verstehen. Japaner ist fein, besonders wenn Leute aus dem Kanji in den Hiragana buchstabieren. Aber es scheint, kein automatische Übersetzung Service für Esperanto geben.
Your German sucks. I hate translation machines cuz they will NEVER be as good as a human translator. If there's no machine for Esperanto, than that should be seen as an advantage, cuz we're save from such bad translations.
ciao, tom
TS:Its funny you mention this, cause I had just thought aloud something along those lines on meta: Linguistic democracy...
LDan: "As Brion said, maybe we can speak Esperanto for our official interlanguage (for interlingual issues only)...Esperanto grammar is very simple and it is a good interlanguage....One can learn Esperanto very quickly."
SV:"It might be easier to just learn Chinese. Esperanto —though many here seem to have a serious infatuation with it, is not a very good international language... Using Esperanto for a non-Esperanto project is like voting for a w:Green party candidate who everybody respects, but only gets 2% in the polls."
--- "Thomas R. Koll" tomk32@gmx.de wrote:
Your German sucks.
Well this was rather rude and maybe stupid.
I hate translation machines cuz they will NEVER be as good as a human translator. If there's no machine for Esperanto, than that should be seen as an advantage, cuz we're save from such bad translations.
Mach trans isnt supposed to be as good as people are. It cant by definition ever be -- because machines are machines, and people are not... But it's a tool to throw stuff out there in more or less like the way the language should look. There's noone here who reads French or German who cant figure out pretty easily what machine translated German/French paragraphs are. There is usually a term or two which it totally flubs. ( like the word flubs!)
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
From: Stevertigo Mach trans isnt supposed to be as good as people are. It cant by definition ever be -- because machines are machines, and people are not...
Er. Machines are machines by definition, but it doesn't necessarily follow that machine translation can't ever be as good as human translation.
One fallacious assumption is that machines are not people--and can't ever be.
My guess would be that MT equivalence to HT for everyday purposes (business, science, etc.) is near, and doesn't require machines being people. To get equivalence in the realm of literature/poetry translation would probably require AI, and that's probably a while in the future. Probably within our lifetimes, though. Perhaps even using the nth generation of Wikipedia somehow.
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
Er. Machines are machines by definition, but it doesn't necessarily follow that machine translation can't ever be as good as human translation.
Well, if a machine could do all that humans do, we wouldnt just call it a machine anymore --we'd have to give it a name, wouldnt we?
;) ~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
-- en <fr> -- http://babelfish.altavista.com -- http://lingvo.org/irvdel/eoxx.html
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
Your German sucks. I hate translation machines cuz they will NEVER be as good as a human translator. If there's no machine for Esperanto, than that should be seen as an advantage, cuz we're save from such bad translations.
They can already translate far better than a human if that human happens to be me. You don't have to read it if you don't want to -- just cover your eyes ;) <Ils peuvent déjà traduire bien meilleur qu'un humain si cet humain s'avère justement être moi. Vous ne devez pas le lire si vous ne voulez pas -- couverture juste vos yeux ;) >
Brion Vibber wrote:
[eo] Jen unu: http://lingvo.org/irvdel/eoxx.html
Thank you Brion. But it doesn't seem to go the other way. So you'll have to put up with French. <Merci Brion. Mais il ne semble pas aller l'autre manière. Ainsi vous devrez accepter le français.>
Brion Vibber wrote:
[eo] Eksperimente, dum la sekvaj tagoj mi ne parolos angle en Vikipedio. Por kontakti min, nepre uzu Esperanton au( la francan. Se vi ne parolas tiujn lingvojn, serc^u tradukiston. Mi esperas demonstri iomete la frustron kiun sentas la eksterangla vikipediistularo; mi petas pardonon se tio g^enas.
Machine translation:
:Experimentally, during the next days I will not speak in English in :Vikipedio. In order to contact me, without fail use Esperanto or :French! If you do not speak those languages, should search for :translator. I hope to demonstrate slightly somewhat the frustrate which : feels the eksterangla vikipediistularo; I requests a pardon if that :bothers.
Fine by me. Go for your life. <Fin par moi. Allez pendant votre vie.>
-- Tim Starling.
On Thursday, Oct 23, 2003, at 21:03 US/Pacific, Tim Starling wrote:
But there does not seem to be any automatic translation service for Esperanto.
[eo] Jen unu: http://lingvo.org/irvdel/eoxx.html
"Welcome to the Vikipedio in Esperanto, a nettally being built encyclopedia. Present-day? Is Tuesday, the 21-a of October, 2003 / (the? UTC), the Esperanto-versio to begin? Is in November 2001, and we now cooperate about 9244 articles. A thanks to? Some people! We want to have than 100 000, so we should work!"
;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
[fr]
Les traducteurs automatiques fonctionnent pas mal pour les langues latines. Aujourd'hui, nous avons eu une bonne expérience avec Tim sur l'équivalent français du « Village pump ».
Mais les traducteurs ne sont ni le problème ni la solution.
La chose la plus importante serrait de centraliser toutes les discussions concernant les prises de décision.
[de]
Die automatischen Übersetzer funktionieren schlecht für die lateinischen Sprachen. Heute haben wir eine gute Erfahrung mit Tim auf dem französischen Äquivalent "des Dorfes gehabt pump". Aber die Übersetzer sind weder das Problem noch die Lösung. Die wichtigste Sache drückte, alle Diskussionen zu zentralisieren, was die Entscheidungsfindungen betrifft.
[es]
Los traductores automáticos no funcionan gravemente para las idiomas latinas. Hoy, teníamos buena experiencia con Tim en el equivalente francés de la "bomba de la aldea". Pero los traductores son ni el problema ni la solución. La cosa más significativa apretó para centralizar todas las discusiones referentes a la decisio'n-makings.
[en]
The automatic translators do not function badly for the Latin languages. Today, we had good experience with Tim on the French equivalent of the "Village pump". But the translators are neither the problem nor the solution. The most significant thing tightened to centralize all the discussions concerning the decision-makings.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brion Vibber" brion@pobox.com To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Esperanto sucks
On Thursday, Oct 23, 2003, at 21:03 US/Pacific, Tim Starling wrote:
But there does not seem to be any automatic translation service for Esperanto.
[eo] Jen unu: http://lingvo.org/irvdel/eoxx.html
"Welcome to the Vikipedio in Esperanto, a nettally being built encyclopedia. Present-day? Is Tuesday, the 21-a of October, 2003 / (the? UTC), the Esperanto-versio to begin? Is in November 2001, and we now cooperate about 9244 articles. A thanks to? Some people! We want to have than 100 000, so we should work!"
;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
If you write in both Esperanto and French, then I'll understand you better than if you write in French alone. More generally, the more Latin-script languages you write, the better off I am -- unless you write English (and even then, only if it's good English), in which case additional languages add nothing.
Supposing that I am typical except (perhaps) for my set of fluent languages ({English}), then I'd avise people to write in as many languages as they find convenient (barring maybe obscure ones that are unlikely to find readers on the list).
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org