On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Jan Knutar wrote:
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 11:33, Attila Kinali wrote:
they get a good translation or not). So it's better not
to have a translation than having an automated one
Yes, agreed. An automated translation is much worse
than no translation at all. The automated translators
churn out such gibberish when going between languages
with common ancestry, I can't even imagine how
gruesome the results would be between english and
japanese...
The times I have used Simplified Chinese to English, the translation has
been quite good, of course more general text. Can't say how good it's the
other way around.
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Attila Kinali wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 10:59:42 +0100 (CET)
"J.O. Aho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So you are saying you would be able to make a Japanese translation, if we
don't manage to get someone who masters Japanese?
Nope, i'm saying that the translators are even worse than i am.
If we'd do a translation, then we should have nativ speakers.
Anything else is not optimal
Okey, but this really does raise another question, which languages would
be able to support today, more than english?
I can say I don't have the skilles needed to write one, no matter of
language, but I can help to proof read Finnish and swedish versions.
--
//Aho
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.kotiaho.net/~trizt/
ICQ: 13696780
System: Linux System (PPC7447/1000 AMD K7A/2000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EU forbids you to send spam without my permission
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
