P.S. Chatting to Mark off-list about GTTK, and having experimented with other languages, it appears that GTTK quality varies widely depending on the language pair, and probably the source/target direction.
German, Hindi and Japanese are definitely handled poorly; some other language combinations seem to do much better. A. --- On Mon, 9/8/10, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Parallel text alignment (was: Push translation) > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, 9 August, 2010, 2:37 > > I read that thread and noticed a > lot of confusion. One translator > > admitted she never even tried it, but still had lots > of negative stuff > > to say; more than one person said they found it useful > (see > > Esperantisto's response), and other people seemed to > not realize there > > was a difference between Google Translate and Google > Translator > > Toolkit. > > > GTTK allows you to create your own translation memories, > much like Trados or Wordfast. If there is nothing in your > memory to correspond, however, you get pretty much the same > translation that you get in Google Translate. > > In that sense, Google Translate gives us a good indication > of what Google's translators get when they start on a > Wikipedia article. > > You can all try this: go to a random Japanese or German or > Hindi WP article, and paste the text into Google Translate > to have it translated into your language. > > http://translate.google.com/ > > This is what the translator will have to start from. > > A. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
