Re: Machine translations: extra info

[Sarah Carroll <sarahc -at- INDIGO -dot- IE>]

Hi Jennifer,
Not to be flippant, but with regard to this query
you really should read the thread "Technical Writer
in other languages" which is currently being
debated on the list for a good reason NOT to
use the sorts of machine translation systems
you are hearing about.

Anybody on the list who knows me knows that
I am an ardent advocate of translation technology,
but only in instances where it will assist, rather
than attempt to replace, the translator.

The current state of machine translation systems
is that they are useful in a) assisting people to
understand (in broad terms) the content of a piece
of text written in a language they do not understand,
and b) in translating very large volumes of material
where the content is very similar and which has
been authored in a very controlled fashion.

Systran's mt system which is used by AltaVista
is a good example of a), and Systran's full-blown
system - which costs lotsa dollars and requires
substantial customisation is a good example of b).

Now if they want to use a translation memory
system, that's a different animal. Let me know if
you'd like more information about them.

Best
Sarah
(Dublin, Ireland - for the statisticians)





At 12:00 30/09/98 +0100, you wrote:
>I should have added to my earlier email that our sales offices would
>like a translation software for translating memos, brochures and the
>like. Large documents, such as manuals, we send to agencies. My
>German colleague has told me that he uses IBM's "Personnal
>Translator" software. Anyone know it and can tell me more about it?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jennifer
>
>
>From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000==
>
>
>
>


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=