I like the sense of brute force translation that Google can offer! I do agree about the translation intrinsics being available in other processes but if Google gets the machining correct then the ball game might be close to over. By not adding exception to the flow of translation then Google may achieve a point where people actually enable the faster flowing processes. It's been done in many languages by simplifying and identifying less ambiguous terms so I wont just automatically disregard this initiative of Google's by labeling their supposed nonsense.
E.g Early satellite image dumps would have been practically nonsensical compared to the diligent efforts of mapmakers but everyone knew the advantages straight away; brute force development of a broad base knowledge system. Now combining the product development attraction of numerous user groups the machining of the knowledge base is seen as common sense for global development. [Except here in Vietnam where population needs to be part of a study of points A-B regarding the possibility of getting from A-B. Thereby revealing a nonsense about 'STUPID' maps! :)] On Mar 16, 10:39 am, reza1 wrote: > Dear StubbornVN I think Google's common sense considering ideas for > his works is different from another's for example in Google map maker > or search engine , etc ..... . > In my opinion asking from people for structure with some colorful > highlights ,that each of them is for one structural roles , people can > change the highlights to assume the best choice is the best choice for > structural mistakes. > In my country about 3 companies worked in this field for translating > texts from English to Persian and their translation is better that > Google's because before translation they ask " which field your text > is ?" and they have about 30 fields but I think it will be better that > program uses how my friend said LSA . > > On Mar 15, 8:52 am, StubbornVN wrote: > > > But I have seenexcessive toolkit translation sites (cite later maybe) > > and prefer thestraight into action approach Google takes. So I hope > > it comes, but I hope it isn'tridiculous ridiculous! > > > On Mar 14, 8:06 pm, reza1 wrote:> Google translation has many mistakes in > > grammar and Word meaning > > > specially which words that they have multi meanings in various fields > > > 1-In my opinion its better at first you make toolkit that people can > > > help software in improving grammar aspect for example in "Contribute a > > > better translation" section if Google translation shows > > > subject,Object,adjective, etc.. people can change the wrong sections > > > or suggest the better choice. In Persian language adjective and noun > > > are inverse. > > > At first we use noun after that adjective but in many cases that 3 or > > > 4 adjectives are coming after each other Google translator couldn't > > > understand. > > > 2-for better words meaning : software can count the words that related > > > to that field and select that field as default for that whole or part > > > of text . > > > for example "execute" have many different meaning but usually for > > > Persian Translation Google assume it as "killing person by hanging > > > with rope" if software search all words in the text for categories > > > words in law Field, sport Field, General Field,Art Field, etc... it > > > doesn't choice this mean for all fields -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "General" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-translate-general?hl=en.
