Re: Automated translation into en_GB

[Kenneth Nielsen <k nielsen81 gmail com>]

2009/1/27 Claude Paroz <claude 2xlibre net>:
> Le mardi 27 janvier 2009 à 00:42 +0100, Kenneth Nielsen a écrit :
>> 2009/1/26 Claude Paroz <claude 2xlibre net>:
>> > Le lundi 26 janvier 2009 à 12:42 +0100, Kenneth Nielsen a écrit :
>> >> I don't have much fate in anything autotranslated. One time that I
>> >> proofread a translation that was autoupdated from a compendium and
>> >> then supposedly read through by the translater I think I used more
>> >> time on the proofreading than he did doing the translation. I suspect
>> >> this is similar for most other languages and therefore I don't think
>> >> it is a good idea to add functionality for it, that will just encurage
>> >> bad translation practices. Any english looking language is a special
>> >> case and should be treated as such.
>> >
>> > I suppose each language coordinator is experienced enough to judge this
>> > himself :-)
>>
>> Sure, let me refraise it in a way so that I don't speak for anyone
>> else. I personally don't think automated translations in any shape,
>> way or form, have any justification in free software for any other
>> languages than the english "derivatives". One could of course argue,
>> that it will always be possible to people that don't give a damn to
>> commit broken (possible automated) translations i.e. an automate
>> pretranslations script in DL won't change that, however I do think
>> there is a _availability_ argument in there also.
>>
>> In any case, my sole concerns with the previous e-mail was that before
>> you (being one of the DL gurus) consider using any time on this (no
>> matter how little) I think there should be maybe a couple of positive
>> feedbacks first? Other than from the english family of languages,
>> which can't cover more than 4 of our 118 languages. I think some of
>> all the other stuff you guys are talking about doing with DL is way
>> more important.
>
> I understand your concern about automated translation, which is bad in
> most cases. But apart english derivatives, this might be useful for
> other language derivatives, or for transliteration (e.g. latin ->
> cyrillic conversion).
> That's why the functionality shouldn't be put aside without
> consideration.

Ahh ok. Lets see if there is more interest.