Re: Machine Translation

On 29 Nov 2003 23:31:18 -0800, Omer Rashid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> ... I have 2-3 sugesstions for that that it should be word to word
> rather than sentence wise.

Much has been written over the centuries about "word by word" replacements 
schemes; I can't bring myself to call such schemes translations. If you 
read a transliteration into English then it does not sound like English at 
all. The largest body of literature on such approaches concerns the 
translation of religious works. For the language I'm concerned with 
translating to/from English formal equivalance (literalism, word-for-word, 
metaphase) will not work. At best it results in a Pidgin language that no 
one uses at worst it's a waste of time as the receivers will ignore it.

Two of the best texts for translators are "In Other Words" by Mona Baker
(Routledge, 1992, ISBN 0-415-03086-2) and "Meaning-Based Translation" by
Mildred A Larson (University Press of America, 1998 (2ed), ISBN
0-7618-0971-6)

Regards, Trevor

<>< Re: deemed!