GameBanshee Forums

Babelfish is notoriously unreliable. The problem isn't words. It's grammatical rules, multiple meanings, inflections, idioms. Excellent computerized translation isn't necessarily bad for simple things, but Babelfish isn't precisely top of the line. In any case, this just in a few days ago, from ITNews:

Online translator sparks diplomatic row

An email sent to the Dutch foreign ministry by a group of Israeli journalists has sparked a diplomatic row, thanks to an unreliable translation by Babelfish. The journalists wrote a set of questions before a planned fact-finding trip to The Netherlands, running them through the online translation tool to turn them into Dutch.

The beginning of the email read: 'Helloh bud, enclosed five of the questions in honor of the foreign minister: The mother your visit in Israel is a sleep to the favor or to the bed your mind on the conflict are Israeli Palestinian.'

...Another question in the email asked: 'Why we did not heard on mutual visits of main the states of Israel and Holland, this is in the country of this?' And a third said: 'What in your opinion needs to do opposite the awful the Iranian of Israel?'

"How could this email possibly have been sent?" an Israeli diplomat told the Jerusalem Post. "These journalists have sparked a major incident."

I'm sure it's not a major incident. At worst, it's probably the representatives of two nations screaming their respective lungs out at a group of lazy journalists who don't really seem to care about doing their job correctly. That said: would you agree that there are reasons to learn new languages? That Babelfish is not the answer to understanding other peoples?

fable wrote:That said: would you agree that there are reasons to learn new languages? That Babelfish is not the answer to understanding other peoples?

I don't know if it's the answer, I sometimes use it for convenience's sake to look up words when translating Russians texts.

I do know one thing, no mechanical translation, Babelfish or otherwise, is safe and reliable enough to use for diplomatic or other sensitive talks. I've never heard of any diplomatic dialogue not happening with official translators, either, so I have my doubts about the truthfulness of your newsbit, especially since I did not hear about it and I'm Dutch.

I wasn't sure whether to laugh out loud or roll my eyes when I read that..

Seriously though, I'd have thought they would have, at the very least, used professional translators for something like this...
Online translating tools are handy if you want a very basic gist of what is being said.. but to rely upon them for official and sensitive matters seems to be sheer lunacy... What were they thinking?

Sometimes for the fun of it I'll pull up Babelfish to do French/English translations. At least 50% of the time the results are astoundingly inaccurate (not to mention entertaining), not just grammatically but in terms of subtle or precise meaning..
Certainly not something you would want to use when the need for diplomacy is paramount..

Of course, from what I understand, journalists the world over have a reputation for laziness. If this incident is representative, then the reputation is apparently well deserved.

I more or less agree with fable here. A speaker of the language would have probably been able to avert such a humiliating incident.

Excellent computerized translation isn't necessarily bad for simple things, but Babelfish isn't precisely top of the line.

This calls for a better program or better input into Babelfish...

I spoke to a computer linguists a couple of years ago, who claimed that online translators like babelfish was ludicrously poor in comparison to what was currently state of the art in the field. I hope that some good ones will reach the free online status soon as it certainly would be a good service, should it work.

Brother None wrote: I do know one thing, no mechanical translation, Babelfish or otherwise, is safe and reliable enough to use for diplomatic or other sensitive talks. I've never heard of any diplomatic dialogue not happening with official translators, either, so I have my doubts about the truthfulness of your newsbit, especially since I did not hear about it and I'm Dutch.

For the record it wasn't a diplomatic dialogue.

Also agree with Fable. These journalists should have approached a translator instead of relying on some online software to do the translation of what they're writing.

Dottie wrote:I spoke to a computer linguists a couple of years ago, who claimed that online translators like babelfish was ludicrously poor in comparison to what was currently state of the art in the field. I hope that some good ones will reach the free online status soon as it certainly would be a good service, should it work.

It would be a good service, and make my Russian work for uni a lot easier.

But I reiterate my opinion that computer translators can not at this point, no matter how advanced, replace human translators for economic or political talks. I've studied some linguistics as a part of my Russian Studies, and the simple fact is that cultural matters and the ever-evolving nature of languages don't make it possible at this point.

Soon, though. Who knows? It'd sure cut down the costs of the UN, who spend like 70% of their budget on translators.

Dottie wrote:For the record it wasn't a diplomatic dialogue.

That's good. Then the "major incident" remark is obviously wrong.

I don't think this is waht Babelfish is for.
For communication to someone, use an expert.

However, when I get an email in a language I don't understand, I use Babelfish. (internal mails of global company, so some are native and not in Englisch)
The contect wil be slightly giberish and some things may be pulled out of context, but it works good for me. I know what I must do (I fix problems) and communicate back in Enlisch when I'm done.

Trivia question:
Who knows where the word Babelfish comes from?
There's a cookie in it for you.

Rob-hin wrote: Who knows where the word Babelfish comes from?

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I wish it was as good as those babelfish, though

True, would even be worth having it sticking out your ear all the time to get the benefits.

Babelfish can work successfully if there is a severely restricted domain of discourse, and very simple syntax is employed. Which eliminates a ton of things you can discuss, even if you reduce the complexity of sentences down to those employed by a first grader or a politician on the campaign trail. Even then, problems remain. If you want to say, "I like Mozart," how will a translation program understand the verb "to like"? It really does breaking down one's thinking into the simplest units possible to get automated translation such as that of Babelfish to work properly.

Brother None wrote:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I wish it was as good as those babelfish, though

No wonder it sounded so familiar...

@fable

Babelfish can work successfully if there is a severely restricted domain of discourse, and very simple syntax is employed. Which eliminates a ton of things you can discuss, even if you reduce the complexity of sentences down to those employed by a first grader or a politician on the campaign trail.

This greatly diminishes the use of Babelfish, doesn't it?

Loki[D.d.G] wrote:This greatly diminishes the use of Babelfish, doesn't it?

I don't think so. Because Babelfish appeals to both the lazy and those lacking time to do better. It is extremely easy to find and use, so I don't think it will ever lack for people who prefer it to far better but more resource intensive methods of getting a translation.

Because Babelfish appeals to both the lazy and those lacking time to do better.

I think journalists fit the bill perfectly. No offence.