On 02/11/14 22:03, Tom Davies wrote:
I've often wondered if they might be "good enough" to get rough translations done well enough for
humans to proof-read and polish?
If you've read the manuals for products that are made in China, to be
sold in North America, you've seen how good machine translation is.
just "good enough" to use alongside the human translators own skill and knowledge, perhaps to get
As an author, the most useful function of machine translation, is to
round trip text through three or four languages. If the resulting output
retains the message that was intended, albeit not the vocabulary, then
the writing is "good".
Perhaps better for people who are only just starting to translate things?
For quick and dirty work, where the user won't ascribe the quality of
the translation to whatever is being described, machine translation is a
good starting point.
Does either of those ideas have any validity?
Professional translators prefer to translate material into their native
language, because it provides for better (qualitatively speaking) accuracy.
* English - detected
To unsubscribe e-mail to: email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/l10n/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy