Hi There, This debate is becomming very tedious. Am 13.03.2006 um 11:23 schrieb Dave Fawthrop:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:20:14 +0100, "Keith J. Schultz" <schultzk@uni-trier.de> wrote:
|Maybe one last word here. | | | The EU use MT technologies to translate the bulk. Yet, the produced | texts are still manually processed by humans to get it right. | If the google method was so good the EU would not need translators | since thier written texts as basically similar in all langauges. |They are | basically formal debates and legistative in form. | | Keith.
The EU MT technologies are specifically adjusted to work with the specialised language/subjects used by the EU for laws and political debates.
exactly.
Googles proposals are for general text, and therefor *much* *much* more demanding. More demanding, definately. If it does not even work for a specialized field, how do you expect it to work in a general text!?? I have been here, there and back again.
IMO The Google proposals will never get better than a first pass, before a human does the job properly.
Just what I saying.
I use Systran, the market leader, on occasion, and its translations are at best understandable.
Which product. Already, mentioned that the better products are not availible to the general public. Keith.