Giles Watson wrote:
Phil Hand wrote:
Now, I don't know about romance languages. But I'm often told that they are some of the hardest pairs to work between because you have to be so careful to avoid false friends. I'd like to hear other romance language colleagues chip in to tell us if Google or any other MT system can really achieve decent results in their pairs.
It's not just a question of a few false friends. Romance languages tend to have stylistic expectations about sentence structure and the organisation of thought that contrast with English.
For example, Italian - but the comment also applies to other Romance languages - likes its sentences to look solid. Forms and notions balance or offset each other and the ideas often tend to be organised in (nested) pairs. English, in contrast, generally seeks to engage the reader's attention by imparting a sensation of movement. Readers expect sentences to flow and triplets are more common.
If you want an analogy, it's a bit like listening to a tango (2/4 time) and trying to transcribe it as a waltz (6/8 time).
You can, of course, calque the organisation of thought in the Italian but the English will plod and the translation will be far less effective than the original.
MT doesn't even address this issue, except by imposing its own tone-deaf rhythms on the target texts. If and when MT begins to hear language with a native ear (or humanity loses its ability to enjoy language's sounds), it will be time for translators to step down and let the 'puters take over.
As someone was saying somewhere (maybe even in this thread) one of the greatest dangers of MT is the bastardisation of the language... this is was post-editing does... in order to be quick and earn a decent rate, post-editors tend to get on with it, creating a bastardised version on the target language. Stylistic changes are not applied. Yes, you get something readable, but on the long run the language will lose all the nuances that make them special... it's already happening, for example, in Italian with the introduction of many English words, which are not even used correctly.
If MT is used "privately" by single translators, who are not so hard-pressed to be productive, this can be largely avoided. Again, we return to the old chestnut of increasing profits at all costs, pushed by platform vendors and big multinationals whose only interest is saving money and getting even richer. Never mind destroying your own language...
The stance against MT used for profit by most translator is not purely financial... we work with languages and we want to preserve them. We are the experts. Language is not a commodity and must be protected.