»

Tips

Here you can ask general questions like how to use Tatoeba, report bugs or strange behaviors, or simply socialize with the rest of the community.

Before asking a question, make sure to read the FAQ.

Latest messages

You may write in any language you want. In Tatoeba, all languages are equal.

Wall (274 threads)

<<
<
12345 >>>
  1. DEMETRII THOUGHTS ON IMPROVING TATOEBA CORPUS

    I’ve read CK’s document and found that I completely disagree with it... So, I’ve written my own one. This is how I see the ideal Tatoeba.

    * If something can be done by computer, don’t impose it on people
    　* Smart grouping instead of removing near-duplicates
    　* Auto-adding full stops

    * Contributing should be simple
    　* Don't discourage contributions
    　* Keep rules simple

    * One man’s mistake is another man’s correct sentence
    　* "More sentences + filter" is better than "less sentences"
    　* We need a way to rate corectness and filter sentences
    　　* By people’s voting
    　　　* Rated by anyone (wisdom of the crowds)
    　　　* Rated by 'native speakers' (self-proclaimed)
    　　　* Rated by people you trust (selectable)
    　　* By prescriptive standards
    　　　* [In]correct usage according to XXX style guide

    * Editing is not needed
    　* Editing is a mess
    　　* Need to check other translations
    　　* Moderators need to wait
    　　* Sentence owner may refuse to correct the sentence
    　* Never edit, just add another sentences
    　* Incorrect sentences will get low rating and be filtered
    　* Sentences with negative ratings will be deleted by script
    • Although I find something appealing in both CK's ( http://tatoeba.org/eng/wall/sho...#message_18044 ) and Demetrius's vision of the direction in which Tatoeba should go, I don't see how either one will happen. CK's approach involves a change in contributors' behavior that flies in the face of what we've seen so far (despite frequent requests, especially from him), while Demetrius's involves a rating system that would require implementation effort that I just don't see happening at a time when Tatoeba's software is effectively dormant.

      If Tatoeba's prime audience were perceived as consisting of people outside the community who use it for reference without knowing anything about the individual community members who contribute sentences, then obviously quality and reliability would be of prime importance. But I don't think the site ever served those people particularly well, especially given the decision to put the Tanaka corpus at the heart of the Tatoeba corpus.

      Whether or not I like it, I have come to think that Tatoeba best suits people inside the community, and in particular, those who come for whatever particular purpose they want to meet. If I want to figure out how a particular word is used in Hebrew, I can search for it and see which sentences have been written by people I've come to trust. If I'm in an editing mood, and looking for a way to pass time, I might look at the English sentences with "@needs native check" tags and comment upon them, though I don't delude myself that I'll actually "drain the swamp" to any appreciable degree (especially since many of the sentences will fall into a gray area). If I want to learn how to translate an English sentence of my own, I can contribute it and then ask someone I trust to translate it. In this largely anarchic, do-what-you-want environment, I don't think you can do much other than contribute in whatever way you enjoy. I guess that's a more Demetrius-ist than CK-ist approach, but with less optimism regarding the usability of the outcome.

      For the record, I don't contribute sentences in a language that's not my native one, but I know that there will always be plenty who will.
      • To those in favor of a rating system: I won't chime in with my opinion this time, but I just want to point out that there hasn't been any major change to Tatoeba in the last three years, so I'm not sure we should expect any in the next three.
        • Actually, it wouldn't be too difficult to set up a quick website intended as a tester for a rating system.

          We would need to:

          (1) collect a list of users who would want to participate
          (2) create a second set of accounts for these users (since we wouldn't assume to have access to everyone's Tatoeba password)
          (3) agree on a rating algorithm
          (4) set up a basic page that calls different Tatoeba sentences and translations, and then lets the testers rate them

          (1) and (2) are cake. (3) would need some discussion - I proposed an algorithm in my January post, but this could be changed/refined. (4) I see as one day of hard work for one intermediate web programmer, if things (particularly, interfacing with the Tatoeba sentence database) go smoothly.

          At first, it could be a separate website dedicated solely to rating the Tatoeba corpus.

          Any takers?
          • I would sign up to participate, though I assume you're looking for a list that contains more than one person. You could always try recruiting people on the IRC channel or by private message.
            • I'm just polling for general interest.

              If no one cares about taking the time to do this, then I won't either. But if people are interested, then why not. I think a team of ~10 to start things off could be sufficient.
    • I remember proposing something similar a while ago (in January of this year, I think). Basically, I agree that too much effort is being spent by members on low-payoff tasks. In particular with regard to manually monitoring corpus quality when an automatic rating system would be quicker, more efficient, and more statistically robust.

      However, I know that a lot of users here are conservative and hesitant with respect to the idea of ratings, which is an attitude that I personally find to be irrational. It'd be great if there were someone well-versed in karma systems that could contribute to this discussion.
      • Actually, sometimes I think that the rating system is not required to exist as a part of Tatoeba.

        It can be included as a UserScript that queries a foreign server, or just a separate rating site that imports Tatoeba sentences.

        This will also allow for some decentralisation, which is also a good thing.
        • Yea, I've also thought about this option. The biggest inconvenience that immediately strikes me is that completely new visitors to the site wouldn't be able to see sentence ratings without setting up a script or accessing an auxiliary site. In (my version of) the ideal world, a random internet user would stumble on a Tatoeba sentence and have a number next to it that somehow reflected its reliability. Then he/she could say, for example, "okay, 95% is pretty good, I'll go ahead and assume this is right and use it for whatever I need it for". That way this site could be *useful* to the masses with at least some sort of quality claims behind its data (sentences/translations).

          That said, a pilot script/site that interfaced with Tatoeba and let the users here test out a rating system prototype without making it an integral part of Tatoeba itself could also be a useful first step.
          • >> new visitors to the site wouldn't
            >> be able to see sentence ratings

            It is in fact possible to avoid. The foreign site can put Tatoeba tags with their ratings (and, probably, comments).
            • But then that site would become the new Tatoeba, wouldn't it? :-)

              Actually, how easy would it be to copy Tatoeba and to develop it independently? I've discussed this a little bit with Alan, since it seems like the people capable of developing the current site are too busy to do it...

              Of course, I'm a hypocrite here since there's a lot I would love to improve about Tatoeba but probably don't have the time to do it, either, heh. But some people must have time... right?
              • >> But then that site would become the
                >> new Tatoeba, wouldn't it? :-)

                No, it wouldn't. It would just query Tatoeba’s URL for tag-setting.

                I don't propose adding new sentences on that new site.
                • So a "Tatoeba Viewer" of sorts :-)
                • But seriously, if you or other people would like to dedicate maybe 15-30 minutes a day to discuss this and start coding something that could then be tested on a smaller scale before being proposed to the community, I would actually be willing. I think that there's enough interest and that this is a good chance to make some major improvements to the current system.

                  Let me know.
                  • I would be interested, but I think we need to think everything over very thoroughly.

                    For example, it may be useful to replace links with a 'rating for sentence X as a translation of Y'.
                    • We can have a good think, certainly. I should write to liori and summon him here, as he would probably be able to contribute a lot of good ideas.
          • >>> In (my version of) the ideal world, a random internet user would stumble on a Tatoeba sentence and have a number next to it that somehow reflected its reliability. Then he/she could say, for example, "okay, 95% is pretty good <<<

            Or even much more simple:

            The search results are shown according to the order of their reliability (without showing a percentage or some other "verdict" that may provoke discussions about the precision, justice and reliabilitiy of the realiability check procedure). Now the search results appear in chronical order. Certainly not allways the oldest sentences are the best. If the apply the same procedure as linguee* the feedback of the users would bit by bit rearange the order of the sentences and the reliability of the first shown examples would grow, yet there would be no need to pretend that we apply or try to find a perfect evaluation system. We'd only say that there is a higher probabilty to find good examples near to the top of the list, than more behind. If you click the link (or visit http://www.linguee.com/ otherwise) and move the cursor over the example you'll see a thumb down and thumb up button.

            * http://www.linguee.com/english-...source=english
            • Yes.

              You could also have a tab to switch between "sort by quality" and "sort by relevance" (like Youtube :-)
            • To demonstrate the stupidity of such a system, I'll take this example :

              http://tatoeba.org/fre/sentences/show/2876497

              I would never utter that sentence myself. I had never heard it until a week ago. I actually asked the Belgian 12 years old pupil (a brilliant one with high marks in French) who said that to repeat it and confirm the meaning I had supposed it had.
              Then I asked others to confirm they were saying this as well, and investigated with parents to confirm the use of that sentence.
              99% of francophones would probably not recognize the validity of this French sentence. But it is nevertheless valid. it's just that it is used in a limited area (Brussels, and probably part of francophone Belgium, although probably not all of it...and maybe also part of Northern France...I don't know...)
              Probably 50% of francophones will be shocked when they see that sentence and protest that Tatoeba produces weird things and I can already hear the preposterous self-proclaimed experts (usually know-it-all youngsters) who will comment that this sentence is not acceptable (I can't wait...I'll keep you posted...)

              Well, again, it is valid French. 100% so.

              So what about this sentence within a rating system of crowd stupidity that you are promoting ?
              It will be kept in the dark bottom of the corpus because 99% of voters (and probably 99.99%, because non-natives will also vote and the vast majority of them would never hear this because they don't learn French from 12 years old from Brussels)
              Why should it be so ? It is a valid sentence. An interesting one, actually. Even if I won't ever use it myself, I quite like it and that is why I added it to the corpus, like I usually do, every time I hear an interesting or rare - and valid - form, spoken by natives. (I actually use Tatoeba to collect them, among other uses I make of the service)

              You could say that it is not what 99% of French pupils say in that context. But what if you happen to be in Brussels and hear it and can't understand it although you would need it ? Why is it less important to understand that one than to understand other variants anywhere else if you're not elsewhere ?
              And if 12 years olds in Brussels use specific sentences, it is highly probable that 12 years olds anywhere else also use specific ways to say the same thing.
              Congo has now more francophones than France, Belgium and Switzerland together...Do you know how they say this in the different parts of Congo ?
              Which one is the valid example sentence that should be on top of the queries results and why ?

              A valid sentence is a valid sentence and that's that. No rating system will change that. If you want to learn a language, you have to learn ANY of its valid sentences. I understood that sentence - even if I needed confirmation - because I'm a native and I understand that French is not limited to what I've already heard in my life (most people don't understand this one and those who don't are just pains in the neck on Tatoeba...)

              Rating sentences will result in impoverishment. You will see illiterate people and non natives decide what is a valid sentence and what is not. I see this daily in comments on Tatoeba.
              And what would happen to this precious sentence on Tatoeba ? It will be buried.
              Go tell this 12 years old that his sentence doesn't deserve to be an example !
              I will certainly oppose that with all my energy.
              • You are making assumptions on how the rating algorithm will work without even knowing what the algorithm would be.

                This is to be discussed, but as I already proposed, one should rate users, and not sentences. The validity of a sentence should be reflected by what ratings a user gets *on average*.

                So, if you add 100 sentences, 99 of which are "standard" and get good ratings, then your 1 "nonstandard" sentence would only lower the collective rating to, say, 99. You can't even hope to rate 2+ million sentences and 100+ million translations one by one in a statistically rigorous manner (unless the users rate, I don't know, 10 sentences for every sentence they add, but even this would be a monumental time-consuming task).

                So that answers that example of yours - the nonstandard sentence will inherit the rating of its owner. The owner could even comment the sentence if they know its nonstandard so that people won't blindly downrate it.

                Do you have other examples? Please continue, because pointing out concrete potential drawbacks is much better than simply nay-saying things blindly, and so here your input is more than welcome.
                • >So, if you add 100 sentences, 99 of which are "standard" and get good ratings, then your 1 "nonstandard" sentence would only lower the collective rating to, say, 99.

                  Then if I'm from Brussels (non-standard French) and add only Brussels sentences, I'll have it all wrong with a rating of zero, although my French is 100% valid ?!?

                  Where is the logic ?
                  • We are going in circles. This is the same argument as for the different varieties of Spanish.

                    If the two types are so radically different that a significant majority of your sentences are different, then treat the two as different languages for rating purposes. If the minority is different, then simply add a comment to the non-standard ones and expect that the raters will be reasonable. Or simply add an option to disable ratings for certain sentences, if you fear that they're going to be downrated.

                    Your challenges are good, but none of this is beyond a good algorithm. Next challenge?
                    • > then treat the two as different languages for rating purposes.

                      No. It's 100% French. You just don't understand diversity within a language. You're just a language fascist.
                      • What part of "FOR RATING PURPOSES" did you not understand?
                    • the problem is the same as always, I personally just know what's said in Spain, not what's said in Argentina, Colombia, ... so, how can I know if a sentence is used also there or not?
                      • You make them different languages for rating purposes.
                        • That's theory. But it is not that simple. Where do you put the limit ? Just in Belgium, there are many different ways to speak French : Liège, Bruxelles, Mons, Namur...all different with many local expressions. All French though and as valid as any...
                          • Gee, I don't know... You sit down, you propose algorithms, you observe how they work, you make judgments, and then you refine them until they can do no better. And then, if it's still insufficient, you go to sacredceltic, you kneel down before him, and you say "Good sir, I should have listened to your wisdom! We were on a fool's errand, trying to somehow improve the quality of a site's contents via a rating algorithm, an approach that, though it is the standard for almost any professional site, is simply a hopeless endeavor for a language sentence site as divine as this one! Oh, how we have erred!"

                            Otherwise, you succeed and the site is better.
                            • No, the site won't be better the day when trolls like you, who overrate their language abilities, will control a silly rating system.
                • These are the reasons I don't agree with a rating system:
                  - Nowhere is it said that Tatoeba is intended for beginners. Some members here have been using Tatoeba's sentences as a resource for language learners, and that's OK as long as it doesn't interfere Tatoeba's main purpose: collect example sentences in several languages. What I'm saying is that some people would only rate a sentence "OK" if they think that sentence might be useful for their own purposes.
                  - Before you want to implement a rating system on Tatoeba, you should really think (again) about regional differences. My Portuguese dialect is not the only one. It's used in several countries, and sometimes even grammar differs! Now think about English, French, and Spanish. Using ONE flag to represent a language is not only disrespectful, but also misleading and innacurate. I don't need to say how messy it would be if an Argentinean user was to rate sentences (or whatever) belonging to a Spanish user, or vice-versa.
                  - Just like sacredceltic wrote, Tatoeba would lose rich information if a rating system were implemented. I've added myself several sentences that I wouldn't use myself, but I know other people do and are completely correct, so I think it's relevant to keep them here. In other words, this rating system would be completely biased, and minorities would not be represented.
                  - Members with a low rating would feel discouraged and probably leave Tatoeba, even if they've been unfairly low rated.
                  • For your first point: this would just mean that they will rate a smaller portion of the sentences, right? But so what?

                    Second point: see my reply to sacredceltic above. These are challenges that can be overcome.

                    Third point: if you add a sentence that you wouldn't use yourself, add a comment on it. Or, like I said to sacredceltic above, add an option that disables rating that particular sentence. Again, these are surmountable challenges, not definitive arguments about why a rating system would fail, destroy Tatoeba, and shouldn't even be attempted.

                    Fourth point: another surmountable challenge. If they are being rated unfairly, then either (a) the community sucks, or (b) the algorithm sucks. (b) is a technical challenge, and you could propose several approaches to make ratings be less sensitive to quick changes (this is similar to filtering out noise in engineering/math applications, for which there are entire books and hundreds of papers). If the community is so bad that tons of people are being unfair and forcing good users to leave, then you've got a much more serious problem and it's not the rating system. Otherwise, low rated users would be those who truly contribute badly consistently.

                    Finally, none of this has to be mandatory, so I don't understand why there's such a resistance to even trying it out. You could allow users to opt out of having their sentences rated, in which case nothing is said about the credibility of their sentences. You could start by making this an auxiliary website, like Impersonator mentioned, that would only be there for people who care about having a credibility score on a given sentence. If it fails miserably, don't use it. If it succeeds, then join the effort and then talk about making it a standard for the main Tatoeba. That's how R&D works.
                    • Your premise is just flawed : you suppose a language is defined by all its speakers. But it's just not the case. Your own native language, Russian, has been actually defined by a handful of writers and poets. Not even 0.1% of Russians...
                      Defining a language requires talent...hopefully !
                      • This is called a difference of opinion, not "your premise is just flawed".

                        In today's world, a language is no longer defined by a handful of people due largely to the internet. The same is happening with education - it is now available to anyone with an internet connection, and is no longer the property of an educated few.

                        From my point of view, your stances are about 20-30 years out of date.
                        • > In today's world, a language is no longer defined by a handful of people

                          Yes it still is...
                          Language is not innate. It is learnt. It is a convention and must not be anarchic. It's like laws : people need experts to design them, otherwise the different street talks are not inter-comprehensible.
                          Ask people on Internet to vote for laws and you will end up with a giant mess, exactly like voting for maths theorems or the laws of physics...It doesn't make sense.

                          Communication requires a protocol. The more complex and widespread the communication, the more complex the protocol. Otherwise, sentences just stop making sense, which is what's happening with Globish...but also to ghettos.

                          In certain areas of Paris suburbs, I don't understand some French people, although they were born in France, because they had little school education and designed their own street talk. I don't care, I don't need much to understand them. But they can't get jobs, because their specific communication makes them unable to function in a "standard-French" society...Sometimes they ask me things while in the metro. I know that their language is a kind of French but I just don't understand it in most cases...They must believe I'm a foreigner who speaks no French. It doesn't help them much getting what they want...

                          >The same is happening with education - it is now available to anyone with an internet

                          What about the millions of teachers ? Why haven't they been sacked, yet ?
                          Language is part of the learning toolbox. Internet doesn't make sense if you haven't learnt the language first...
                          • When arguing with a troll who seems to have infinite time and nothing else to do, and who is willing to argue forever without making ANY concessions, I simply realize that I am outmatched and desist.

                            This is not to say that I can't argue for having a rating system - I just can't argue for it against someone like you. In any case, this will be a side project for people who care about bringing some sort of quality evaluation to Tatoeba. You don't have to partake if you don't want to.
                            • You have trolled this community with endless talk about the rating of sentences and we all know why you do that : because you want to prove that your sentences are as valid as those by natives, which is both false and preposterous...
                              You pretended to be English native, then French when you actually are Russian and you coin sentences in Mandarin, Uighur, ... You're actually the worst enemy of quality on Tatoeba.

                              We should actually be busy designing a way to downgrade trolls like you.
                              • I have "trolled" this community with "endless talk" about the rating of sentences because I would like to be a part of a community that somehow evolves and advances and benefits things on a bigger scale than simply benefiting its 10-20 active users.

                                Naturally, this involves proposing new things and pushing for them when you believe that they're extremely likely to succeed and succeed tremendously. You, on the other hand, cry "nay!" to any idea you don't like/understand without even considering it, and make abstract, circular arguments without proposing your own solutions.

                                Of course, I understand that it's much easier to sit in your armchair and criticize what others propose without proposing anything yourself.
                                • I perfectly understand you proposal and I oppose it because it is flawed from the very beginning.

                                  I don't propose solutions for rating sentences by the public, because the very idea that the public can rate sentences is flawed, so I don't waste time designing silly things to serve silly purposes.
                                  • > I perfectly understand you proposal

                                    No, you don't, because you keep bringing up counter points that have either been addressed already or can be addressed, and act as if they're irrefutable arguments for why a rating system cannot work.

                                    Furthermore, you do not seem to come from technical fields or have the ability to think things through analytically, thereby making you unable to envision how a rating system would function *on a mathematical and algorithmic level*. I'm not saying that this is a flaw or even a drawback, as different people have different professions/backgrounds, but the proper thing to do when you don't have a certain type of knowledge is not to say "well, that's bound to fail because it's too complicated to rate sentences", but to try to learn and understand, bringing up your particular concerns and seeing if what is being proposed can address them or not.

                                    So, no. You don't understand and you don't even try to understand.

                                    When I wrote my long proposal last January, I gave numbers, estimates, and formulas. I actually proposed things in detail and justified why I proposed them that way. Liori *actually coded* what I proposed, ran a simple scenario, and pointed out a drawback, which led me to refine what I did and to improve it. *That* discussion was actually useful, and we need more like that. The discussions I'm having here with you are just garbage, unfortunately.
                                    • >hat's bound to fail because it's too complicated to rate sentences

                                      I never said that. Having anything rated the public on Internet is just normal simple stuff. It's just that in the case of sentences, the purpose of the rating is silly, because most people don't know their own language sufficiently we'll to be in that position.
                                      There's nothing technical about that and I could design one myself. But it's just a silly idea, so I won't...
                                      You may produce as many formulae as you wish, it will still be flawed from the start : the vast majority of people is not skilled enough to rate sentences, so suggesting a rating system for sentences that is open to the public is just plain silly. So you're right, you're talking garbage...
                                      • Then why do people even bother to use "OK" tags?
                                        • Tags don't make a sentence "better" than another, which is the fundamental flaw of a rating system. My tags are no better than anybody's else.
                                          A sentence is either valid or not, but is not more valid than another. That is what you fail to see and that makes you curiously very nervous ...
                                          • This view is contested by modern scholars. Please read about probabilistic linguistics.
                                            • A few silly scholars. Probabilities have nothing to do with the grammaticality of a sentence or its use. It's either used or not, either grammatical or not. That is 1 or 0. There's no probability in there !
                                              • > A few silly
                                                > scholars.

                                                Please abstain from insults.

                                                Also, I'm noting this over and over again: rating system does *not* preclude anyone from using an old OK-tag-based system. As I’ve said, there needs to be a way to filter not only by rating, but also by prescriptive standard.


                                                If you are not convinced by probabilistic approaches, just don’t use them. It’s so simple.

                                                No one forces rating system upon you. It's you who wants to force your denial of probabilistic methods and black-and-white (valid-or-invalid) approach on everyone.
                                                • >Please abstain from insults.

                                                  The day you do...
                                                  • Please point out where I've resorted to insults in this discussion.
                                        • And that's where you entirely missed the meaning of the the example I gave : that sentence is valid. Just valid. Not more or less valid than any other. Nevertheless, 50% of francophones would not acknowledge that at first sight, and they would vote...
                                          You OK tag sentences you know but you may either ignore or discuss sentences that you don't know. You don't rate them against the others...because it is silly...
                                          • > that sentence is valid. Just valid.

                                            Under your definition of 'valid'...

                                            However, you’ve explicitly stated that many people would consider it invalid. You think their definition of 'validness' is wrong. Fine, so just ignore them.

                                            And I'm interested in other people’s definition of 'validness', not in your, so why shouldn’t I be able to know it? Why these many people (who would consider your Belgian sentence wrong) cannot browse the database under their definition of 'validness'?

                                            Why you want the right to use your definition of 'validness', but deny this right to others?
                                            • >Why you want the right to use your definition of 'validness', but deny this right to others?


                                              I don't deny it to anybody and they may "NOTOK" tag it as they wish...but they will have to debate, and I will prove them wrong...so back to OK/NOT OK
                                              • > I don't deny it
                                                > to anybody and
                                                > they may "NOTOK"
                                                > tag it as they
                                                > wish...

                                                My definition of 'valid' allows having 'less OK' and 'more OK' sentences.

                                                For example, I think «найяскравая» is an allowed form but less OK than «найяскравейшая». And «самая яскравая» is between «найяскравая» and «найяскравейшая» for me.

                                                How am I supposed to tag these?
                                                • Producing facts, as you eventually do now, is much more productive than calling me a troll...
                                                  Alas, I don't know Russian or Belarussian, whatever that is.
                                                  But I doubt a sentence can be 85% correct in any language...it is either correct or not, based on grammaticality, orthography and usage.
                                                  • Belarusian superlative is usually formed with -jejš- suffix and, optionally, a naj- prefix (najjaśniejšy, jaśniejšy).
                                                    The construction with "samy" is also possible, but may seem 'too Russian' for many speakers, so it is often avoided.

                                                    The construction with a prefix naj- and without a -jejš- suffix (najjasny) seems to have popularised by an automatic Russian-Belarusian translator "Belazar" in 2009 year. (Since most people speak Russian better than Belarusian, they just use a translator... And this is how this form got into press).

                                                    Most people dismissed this as an error, but it has been argued that this form has been in use in Orthodox Church books at least 10 years before[*] (and probably before), as a loan translation of Old Church Slavonic words, and these uses were intentional.

                                                    So, some people consider these forms as mistakes (even in church books), others think it’s an acceptable alternative.

                                                    So, this way, 'najjaśniejšy' is more valid than 'samy jasny', and 'samy jasny' is more valid than 'najjasny'.

                                                    [*] This was discussed here (in Belarusian): http://by-mova.livejournal.com/589391.html
                                                    • Well, so this problem might be specific to languages that are dominated by another imperialist one.
                                                      It's not the case of my own language...yet...

                                                      I'm curious to hear what English natives have to say.
                                                      Probably we will end up with Indian English being subrated and US English overrated...I'm wondering how Brits and Aussies will swallow it...
                                      • "It's just that in the case of sentences, the purpose of the rating is silly, because most people don't know their own language sufficiently we'll to be in that position."

                                        This is equivalent to saying that a rating scheme would fail because rating sentences is too complicated, so again you contradict yourself. And by "rating sentences", I of course mean "rating sentences well", which you didn't seem to catch.

                                        By your logic, there should be no attempt to decide on the quality of a sentence or a translation. In other words, there should be no OK tags (which are just a very brute rating system, by the way), no @change tags, no comments saying things like "this is incorrect". Because we don't know our own language sufficiently well to make those judgments.

                                        Or are you saying that about the masses and not about yourself? In that case, you have once more demonstrated your ignorance, since who could rate sentences and how is something that goes into the algorithm's design - it thus becomes technical. In fact, I would propose that only advanced users be allowed to rate. But didn't you already know that?
                        • >In today's world, a language is no longer defined by a handful of people due largely to the internet.

                          In Spanish there's still the RAE, a handful of people who make the rules and say what's right and what's wrong in a language. And I have to admit I'm really glad it's like this because otherwise Spanish language would be destroyed by its own speakers...
                          • I think you've oversimplifying.
                            • oversimplifying how?
                              • I don't believe that it works as simply as you say. A handful of people cannot control the media, the internet, and the press to the point where they decide how the language is used. When a new idiom appears, it appears, spreads, and people start to use it regardless of official rules. If a certain grammatical construction starts to get shortcutted for practical reasons, then no handful of people are going to enforce, in today's world, that this shortcutting stop. If the handful of people make rules that are followed, it's because the people accept those rules and because they're needed. Rules that aren't needed are likely to be ignored or amended informally until they're amended officially.

                                You're also oversimplifying when you say that the language would be destroyed by its own speakers. You have to define what "destroyed" means first. Of the languages I speak, most don't have regulative bodies and some are even being assailed by outside influences, but even then I would not say that they're being "destroyed". Certainly, they are being taken farther away from their roots, but so is every language to some extent and one must ask "how much?" to qualify destruction. For me personally, a language is "destroyed" when it no longer has any speakers.
                                • >When a new idiom appears

                                  Idioms don't just "appear" like that. Words and patterns are first introduced by experts in their fields or often snobs, or more often by illiterate people who transfigure sentences that they ignore how to use, or sometimes even as ways to hide your conversation from parents or cops - the case with French Verlan - then they are validated by linguists, to determine whether they are grammatical or not, short-term trends or not (remember the famous "walkman" that was all the rage, to the point that other words were deemed ridiculous and subsequently just disappeared when the "ridiculous" and academic alternatives such as "baladeur" still live on ? haha...the Academy won...yet again !), then writers use them..or not...and administrations and laws are written using the official words and...at the end of the day...what is official wins because we all need to agree to something to communicate, and it's better if the language we use is also the one in which our laws and regulations are written.
                                  What you have in mind is just a few street-talk expressions that will live an average of a few months or years and will then be forgotten and fall in disuse.

                                  100% of the "cool" non-official words that my father used to say as a youngster are in compete disuse nowadays...If I was to utter them, my son would just be dismayed. And it's the same for every language and culture.

                                  You just ignore 99% of the actual language that people read, write in, work with, ...and that form the actual common culture that a language represents. And that 99% is taught, by teachers, in schools, with official grammar rules, syntax...
              • Your example fails to demonstrate the stupidity of a rating system.
                • Probably because you fail to understand it...
                  • I've understood your point this way:
                    a) Different people have different ideas about what is 'a valid sentence'.
                    b) Most people’s idea about what is 'a valid sentence' is incorrect.

                    But this is exactly what is a rating+filtering system expected to fix!

                    Just choose the filter according to your idea of what is correct ('wisdom of the crowds', 'native speakers' rating', 'experts' rating'), and you’ll get only the sentences you need.

                    I really fail to understand how this example demonstrates the problems of the rating system. On the contraty, I think it is a good example why a rating+filtering system is neccessary in the first place.
    • Oh, not the crowd stupidity thing again !

      Why not vote for mathematical theorems as well ? I would not be surprised if most people would vote against 1+1=2...
      • Please read my thoughts again.

        The ratings idea is flexible enough to accomodate for your vision too: just choose 'filter by the expert’s rating' instead of 'filter by everyone’s rating' and you’ll end up with a rating you might like.
        • how would you know who are the experts ?
          • :D
            A really good question! Jen vere bona demando! Eine wirklich gute Frage!
          • How would you know who the experts are now?
            • We don't. We just surmise...and often we discover that self-proclaimed experts are just teenagers who know shit...
          • >> how would you know who are the experts ?

            I’ve originally thought that anyone can choose a 'reviewer group' that is just a list of people.

            Than, anyone can look at the description of group and decide if she trusts this group of reviewers or not. For example, if group #1 may have real names of people, group #2 will be anonymous, some would be more inclined to trust group #1, and so on. Each group may state what they mean by 'valid sentence', and anyone can look if they agree with it or not.

            But, of course, we can come up with some other system. I don’t insist on this.
    • >Sentences with negative ratings will be deleted by script

      Just chilling ! The Lukashenko's way to total language terror dictatorship...
      • Lukashenko doesn’t really need Tatoeba to get language dictatorship. In fact, the orthographic reform of Belarusian language came with a law banning the use of all other orthographies in printed works (and this includes not only the pre-reform official orthography, but also the alternative standard Taraškievica that has a reputation of being 'less Russian').

        __

        As for deletion, having a low rating under all the possible filters means that everyone, even the sentence’s author, has rated it negatively. So, if there is at least one user who rates the sentence as OK, I think it should stay.

        I.e. this is suggested as alternative to deletion (which is unavailable to ordinary users): just rate your own sentence as incorrect, and it’ll be deleted (unless someone else happens to like it).



        Anyway, this part is not going to happen soon. If ratings would be implemented any time soon, they are likely to be on a separate site and not in the main Tatoeba code.
  2. Congratulations, Marek!
  3. :: New advanced contributor ::
    Tatoeba has a new advanced contributor:
    [POL] MarekMazurkiewicz (http://tatoeba.org/eng/user/pro...ekMazurkiewicz)
    • Gratulon!

      Congratulations!
    • Moje gratulacje!
    • Here is a page that you might find useful, especially if you're not already familiar with the information it contains:
      Jen paĝo, kiun vi eble trovos utila, speciale se la informoj en ĝi ankoraŭ ne estas konataj al vi:

      http://en.wiki.tatoeba.org/arti.../intro-linking
      • (Esperanto translation courtesy of al_ex_an_der)
  4. Why can't you mark your sentence after your translation abilities?
    For example you say, 3 for Native Level, 2 for Advanced Level and 1 for Beginner level?
    Maybe you could show this trough different colors and mark in this way the sentences which show that a sentences has to be corrected by a native speaker?

    I mean it would be an idea to differ between the diverse qualities of each sentence and to improve Tatoeba.
    • People tend to wildly overrate their language abilities.
      On Tatoeba, you can read profiles of contributors who claim they are fluent in 15+ languages while they're still under 25...
      • >People tend to wildly overrate their language abilities.

        +1
    • #
    • CK
    • CK
    • 5 day(s) ago
    Tatoeba.org Native Speakers
    http://bit.ly/nativespeakers
    The sentence counts have been updated.
    • #
    • CK
    • CK
    • 7 day(s) ago
    While I know everyone may not agree with the following, I'd hope that members would at least consider limiting contributions to their own native languages.
    Of course, constructed languages are an exception.

    **

    It would be great if we could accomplish what TRANG envisioned.
    In a blog entry in 2009, she said the following.

    "So the concept is : we gather a lot of data, try to organize it, ensure it is of good quality and make it freely accessible, downloadable and redistributable, so that anyone who has a great idea for a language learning application (or a language tool) can just focus on coding the application and rely on us to provide data of excellent quality."


    **

    Here are some related sentences you could think about and translate.

    http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/2009243
    One way to lower the number of errors in the Tatoeba Corpus would be to encourage people to only translate into their native languages.

    http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/1907470
    It's very easy to sound natural in your own native language, and very easy to sound unnatural in your non-native language.

    http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/2840513
    There are many, many nuances in any language which are perfectly natural to the native speaker but which confuse the non-native speaker.

    **

    Here are some other "Thoughts on Improving the Tatoeba Corpus."
    http://bit.ly/improvingtatoeba
    • I belive it would be better if you moved from 'native language' to a 'level of competency'.

      'Native language' is often the language of the culture you associate yourself with, the language of your ethnic background, etc.

      Often people can speak their non-native language much better than their native language.

      We need correct contributions, not contributions of native speakers. I see no point in discouraning non-native speakers from contributing in the languages they know well.


      Here is an example:

      53% Belarusians consider Belarusian their native language, but 27% Belarusians use Belarusian in their daily life and 80% Belarusians never read Belarusian books.

      So, 23% native speakers never read books in their native language and 26% native speakers don’t use their native language. Do we really need such contributions on Tatoeba?
    • Also, could you please align text on your page on the left? Aligning it on the center kinda defeats the point of having a list (you can’t easily scan through the page and see what elements have a black bullet and are the most important, what elements have a white bullet and are less important).
    • Encouraging people to contribute only in their "native language" is a good heuristic to encourage correct contributions, but it suffers from lack of rigor (like any heuristic). Certain foreign speakers may make better contributions than certain native speakers, and it would be unfair to try to stop them from doing so. As Impersonator points out, there's a lot of additional complications that may arise for different languages and language families. I could also provide other examples from my experiences on Tatoeba where the "native speaker contribution only" policy would be extremely restricting and would do more harm than good.

      If you want quality on Tatoeba, you just need a simple regulation system. Users who contribute good sentences/translations should be encouraged to keep doing so and users who contibute bad sentences/translations should be discouraged. Irregardless of what their native language may be. Ratings are the most natural way to do this - you just need to design a robust karma system. But, like Alan said in another post, I think this is simply asking for too much with the current state of Tatoeba and its lack of development, unless someone wants to take things into their own hands and, I don't know, code a parallel Tatoeba where ratings/feedback can be applied to sentences.
  7. Tatoeba Spanish interface's name for Welsh (galés) mistakenly appears as Gaelic (gaélico).
  8. Hej - jeg hedder Hanne og er lektor på en dansk uddannelsesinstitution, hvor vi bl.a. uddanner folkeskolelærere. Jeg er meget interesseret i online fællesskaber, der fungere på kollaborativ basis og faldt over denne side tilfældigt, fordi en af mine venner havde sendt en hilsen på spansk. Jeg googlede oversættelsen og fandt siden her. Flot og spændende og jeg vil gerne bidrage.
    • Hallo, Hanne! Herzlich willkommen! Wir würden uns über Deine Mitarbeit sehr freuen!

      Viele Grüße aus dem Nachbarland! ☺
    • Hei Hanne, jeg kan dessverre ikke snakke dansk. Det er derfor jeg skriver norsk. Velkommen til vår lille samfunnet. Jeg er veldig glad for at du ønsker å bidra til vårt felles prosjekt. Alexander fra din nabolandet Tyskland ☺
  9. Ne zaman tam Türkçede bilebilirim ?!
  10. Good day! Look at this
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA9QzDaKLzc
    and maybe others my files. What you think about such point of view to language problems?
    • Здравствуйте!

      В тексте есть такое: «Что такое язык? [...] Если мы полагаем, что язык есть слова и правила, тогда трудности понимания подводят нас ближе к знанию нового языка. Но давайте вообразим, что правила языка не есть его часть, и язык есть только наша способность придавать значение словам, основанная на опыте привычных фраз».

      Во-первых, по-моему здесь ложная дилемма. Зачем «только»? Слова и правила никак не исключают способности придавать значение словам на опыте. «Способность» описывает язык с одной стороны, «слова и правила» описывает с другой. Одно никак не исключает второго. Зачем Вы из искусственно разделяете? (Приведу аналогию: «но давайте вообразим, что гвозь — это шляпка и ножка, и гвоздь есть только предмет, который забивают в стену»).

      Во-вторых, несколько странно говорить «правила языка не есть его часть». Правила прескриптивной грамматики — это закономерности, выделенные на основе анализа текстов. В общем-то, если учить язык по текстам без изучения правил, то правила в голове всё равно останутся в голове — просто они будут менее чётко сформулированы, т.к. будут выделены на основе анализа меньшего числа текстов.
      • Добрый день.
        Согласитесь что первым языком мы овладеваем без правил. Как такое возможно? Мы просто имеем поддержку звукового ряда, реальными образами. Мы учим язык, развиваем - а потом фиксируем его - изучаем правила. Язык - продукт, правила упаковка. Я просто выступаю за природный порядок вещей:
        1-реальные (подтверждённые образы)
        2 -развитие языка,
        3-изучение правил (упаковка готового продукта)
        • Такое возможно очень просто: в первые годы жизни ребёнок погружён в языковую среду постоянно. Все вокруг него говорят именно на этом языке.

          Вряд ли какой-то взрослый может себе такое позволить. Всё-таки взрослым работать надо, как минимум...

          Сравнение с ребёнком мне кажется по меньшей мере неуместным.
    • An audio presentation in a mix of 2 languages is just impossible to follow for an international audience. In this case, it's not even possible to guess which language is spoken at times...Your point is subsequently lost in translation...
      • Actually, the text is quite hard to follow even for a Russian speaker. ^^"""

        I think the audio is inteneded for Russian-speakers that learn English.


        As far as I’ve understood, the author thinks that the glossed* texts like the one presented in the video are the optimal way of learning the language.

        While it’s hard to deny that glosses may be quite useful, I find it unwise to put the above all the other learning materials.

        _______
        * They’re not called 'glosses' but 'translingua', but I didn’t find anything new in the idea of 'translingua' that warrants coining a new word.
        • * to put theM
        • I think it is the only way. Because traditional way may give results only with self-education that is bigger in 10-50 times.
          Can you point some "GLOSSED VIDEO, TEXT, BOOKS" on youtube or somewhere else ?
          I've read "Leipzig Glossing Rules" http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/re...sing-rules.php
          This isn't the same thing. Like a dead bird isn't a plan.
          How many my video you have looked? "Snark"- has real Translingua translation. Translingua is combination of native language and grammar of a foreign one.
          • >> I think it is the only way. Because
            >> traditional way may give results only
            >> with self-education that is bigger in
            >> 10-50 times.
            How do you measure the effectiveness? Please tell us your method.

            >> I've read "Leipzig Glossing Rules"
            Leipzig glossing rules are for scholars, not for learners. However, they are not the only type of glosses.

            >> Can you point some "GLOSSED
            >> VIDEO, TEXT, BOOKS" on youtube
            >> or somewhere else ?
            No, I havent. (Although I must say I’ve never looked for such thing.)

            I don’t deny that you’ve done a lot of work.

            What I do say is that your statements about this being the most effective method are unfounded.
            • >> How do you measure the effectiveness? Please tell us your method.
              -- It's easy.It's like speed and distance.The effectiveness is speed. Knowledge of the language is the number of million-words that are recognized correctly. Of course I do rough estimates, but it is better than none.

              >> Can you point some - No, I havent. (Although I must say I’ve never looked for such thing.)

              -- But you're sure that you'd saw. You are? If yes, then I do not believe you. I'm a lazy person and I looked them for, before I'd started to do it myself. :)

              >>What I do say is that your statements about this being the most effective method are unfounded.
              --You Are Right. Call it simply "only way". All this methods that can not say "what is language" and show off their tricks ..... Isn't Birdshit the right word for them? :)
              • >> The effectiveness is speed.
                >> Knowledge of the language is
                >> the number of million-words
                >> that are recognized correctly.
                To measure distance, we use a ruler. To measure time, we use a clock. What did you use to measure knowledge? How did you count these millions of words? How did you compare it with other methods?

                >> Of course I do rough estimates,
                >> but it is better than none.
                I wanted to said that you’re likely to be biased to consider your method the best, so you should take measures to ensure that you’re not biased. Have you done this?


                >> But you're sure that you'd saw. You are?
                Sorry, I’ve kinda lost your point.

                Am I sure that one can find lots of English-Russian glosses? I have no idea, I’ve never claimed such a thing. I’m pretty sure once can find lots of glossed Wenyan texts, because it’s how Wenyan has been traditionally studied.

                I just said that nothing in the idea of 'translingua' is new, it’s just the good ol’ glosses.

                I don’t know anything about the availablity of Russian-English glossed texts, and I’ve never claimed I do.


                >> You Are Right. Call it simply "only way".
                >> All this methods that can not say "what is
                >> language" and show off their tricks .....

                Now I’ve lost your point completely.

                Question "what is a language?" is in the domain of linguistics, and there is no lack of answers.


                >> Isn't Birdshit the right word for them? :)

                If you insult all the other methods, it doesn’t make your any better. :)
      • It is difficult - not impossible. Plus, the fist plane was not the "Airbus".
        • I think the second part of your comment would make a great example sentence.
<<
<
12345 >>>