Subject: Re: [boost] [locale] Review of Boost.Locale library
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-17 17:00:50
On 4/17/2011 2:40 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> I do not think you can seriously argue that 'translation' from
>> language X to language Y is more correct if it must go from language X
>> to language E to language Y.
> Translation from N source languages to M target languages requires
> O(M*N) resources, whereas translation from N source languages to E to M
> targets requires O(M+N) resources.
The problem is translating between 1 source and multiple targets.
> Similarly, if you have a world with N
> languages, absent a universal second language E, people need to learn N
> languages to be able to communicate, and 2 if there exists an
> agreed-upon E. This is why we are writing in E in this very mailing list.
That's very nice but it does leave out all those who do not know E. Do
you see that as a practical justification for a programming translation
system ? I do not.
> In theory, it's more correct to translate from X to Y, but in practice,
> it's hard to find people who are simultaneously fluent enough in X
> software terminology and Y software terminology to be able to produce a
> high quality translation.
But it is easier to find someone who is fluent enough in X and E and Y
to do so ?
> And in any event, the fact that the source texts are in E shouldn't
> preclude your translating from X to Y. You just take the translation
> text file for X which is basically a list of (E phrase, X phrase) pairs,
> and translate the X phrases to Y phrases. This requires no E knowledge
> on your part.
If only such a simplistic means of translating between 2 languages
actually existed. I doubt it, even in the limited use of programming
phrases. I know in my own area of expertise, literature, it does not
exist but I will grant that the needs of a computer program may be much
less linguistic precision. But even a computer program still deals in
end-users who want to see text that makes sense to them in their own
language rather than pig-latin type gobbledygook which they will laugh
at. We are talking about computer users who will pay for a computer
program in their own language and commercial companies who can not
deliver poor quality in that regard and hope to be successful.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk