Muro (5 914 fadenoj)
Antaŭ ol starigi demandon, bonvolu legi la oftajn demandojn.
Ni strebas konservi sanan etoson en civilizitaj diskutoj. Bv. legi niajn regulojn kontraŭ malbona konduto.
antaŭ 5 horoj
antaŭ 8 horoj
antaŭ 9 horoj
antaŭ 14 horoj
antaŭ 15 horoj
antaŭ 15 horoj
antaŭ 15 horoj
antaŭ 15 horoj
antaŭ 2 tagoj
please tag as "Azerbaijani"
Is it possible? Can mods do it?
Mass tagging - can we tag all boracasli's submissions as @check ? -_-v
blay_paul brings down the iron fist...
I think a mss tagging ‘tag all sentences linked to this’ would be useful. I.e. if you see it's a ‘fact’, most linked sentences would usually be facts too.
The same goes for quotes by people and from works ... though we should probably have an "original" tag as well to identify the source sentence(s).
I can do it, mods can't, if you tell what you want to do, I can see if it's possible or not:)
by the way there's now autocompletion on tag :)
By the way I need to make a mass tagging for CK already.
Mods can, but Rockers can't!
What language icons do you have, Trang Ho?
please tag as Thai
Punaise, ça faisait un moment que j'étais pas passé, qu'est-ce que ça bouge maintenant sur Tatoeba, le site tourne à plein régime, vraiment content pour vous :D
Et oui, c'est pas trop tôt hein, ça fait 4 ans que j'attends ça :D
Merci en tous cas ^_^
Degree of Grammatical Liberty in Translations:
This is probably a difficult point to set rules on, but it should be discussed. We know we shouldn't translate word-for-word, and that we should take liberties to make sure that the translation carries the same meaning and sounds natural in the language it is translated to. But... how liberal is too liberal?
As a good example, I can think of this:
"This book is good." (A) and "This is a good book." (B)
When people translate on the fly (as probably many do), these two can get mixed up. French would also have these two analogous variants, for example:
"C'est un bon livre." (A) vs. "Ce livre est bon." (B)
I imagine that it is not at all impossible to interlink all four, as they have virtually the same meaning, and the only thing that differs is the grammatical structure (one states the existence of a good book while the other states the existence of the good quality to the given book).
You also run into issues when you deal with languages that are less similar. Chinese (I think, though I could be wrong), takes B much more often than A. In that case, do we simply use B and link it to the A and B's of the French and English? Or do we try to preserve both structural variants and label one of them "rare"?
So again, how liberal is too liberal, and where's the happy balance between meaning and structure?
I'd say that it's impossible to set rules on something like this. But discussion is always good and can help make us better aware of the issues.
I recently asked Sysko about nuanced relationships between sentences of the same language and there are apparently ideas on the drawing board about "qualified" links between sentences that could help with this. It would be great to be able to note links that were grammatical translations, those that emphasised how natural the sentence was in that situation, and possibly being able to annotate the links to give context.
On the topic of "naturalness", this is near impossible to achieve and may be better to leave out -- perhaps leave it to annotations. The problem is that to judge that properly, one needs to be sufficiently proficient, not only in the grammar of each of the languages one's translating from and to, but also in the cultures in which the sentences are used. This is made still more complicated by the fact that we're fundamentally bad at knowing how much we don't know.
I reckon we should leave translations open to both grammatical and situational sentences and emphasise annotating these in comments. If sentences are slightly akward, use of vocabulary is specific to certain situations, etc. leave a note in the comments.
> The problem is that to judge that properly, one needs
> to be sufficiently proficient, not only in the grammar
> of each of the languages one's translating from and
> to, but also in the cultures in which the sentences
> are used.
Yes, exactly. And nothing less will do! (OK, maybe channelling sacredceltic a little there)
> This is made still more complicated by the fact that
> we're fundamentally bad at knowing how much we don't know.
Lemon juice bandit!
By the way, blay_paul, I see quite a lot of inconsistency in your policy: You recommend that only natives should translate sentences, - and somehow put me under accusation for reasons I still ignore - but you own 428 Japanese sentences. Are you ALSO a native Japanese by any chance?
Of how many languages are you a NATIVE, exactly?
> You recommend that only natives should translate
No I don't.
So how exactly do you know - better than the others, and symptomatically ME - what you don't know?
Do you have a particular instrument to measure your own ineptitude?
> So how exactly do you know - better than the
> others, and symptomatically ME - what you don't
Care to rephrase that as a question?
So how exactly do you know what you don't know? (better than the others, and symptomatically ME)
Well, if you insist on phrasing it like that, I don't know what I don't know. That does not preclude me from knowing what others do not know.
Really? No more than I do myself, then?
You also don't know things that you don't know, and know things that others do not know.
Seeing as that applies to every single human being on the planet I do not think it is a very meaningful issue to address.
Indeed! I share this view.
So, since according to you, and I agree, this feature of our mind is shared by all humanhood, and that this is subsequently meaningless to address, how come you felt the urge to name my name, among all the others?
I do not see any connection between an implication of a tendency to emphatic expressions and the fact that people don't know what they don't know and yet also know what others don't know.
And what has your tendency to emphatic expressions anything to do with me? I still don't get this...
I implied that you have a tendency to use emphatic expressions.
Independently of the fact that this judgement of yours should not appear on this wall and constitutes a clear case of an ad hominem attack, could you please provide links to my "emphatic expressions", to ground your accusation, please?
> Are you ALSO a native Japanese by any chance?
> Of how many languages are you a NATIVE, exactly?
> So how exactly do you know - better than the others, and symptomatically ME - what you don't know?
Can you please both continue this discussion on private messages, or whatever non-public media. I don't think this kind of discussion have a reason to be on this wall. Thanks
I deeply agree, and I wonder why it was started in the first place anyway. I am still PUZZLED that my name surfaced in this thread where it had no purpose.
I'm still struggling to understand it...
so this is supposed to illustrate my emphasis? How extravagant! Especially since these examples are taken from sentences I wrote AFTER your accusation...
Do you experience difficulties ordering the sequence of facts?
Nevertheless, I don't see how these sentences are more "emphatic" than anything else. They're just to the point and articulate. They attempt at clarity, since it seems many people here seem to at sea, when someone writes without these annoying emoticons. Insisting on a particular element of a phrase through capitalisation is perfectly appropriate.
* since it seems many people here are at sea
>OK, maybe channelling sacredceltic a little there
I beg your pardon again. I seem to have been mentioned in your debate. Can you please elaborate?
Don't fan the flames, Sacredceltic. If you really want to hash this out with Paul, send him a message. The community doesn't need this, I suspect the majority doesn't want it and it certainly doesn't help.
As a personal advice, I'd suggest you stop being so easily baited. You'd make a poor fish...
Oh, and to be fair: @Paul. Yes, that was unnecessary.
Congratulations on pouring petrol on the ember.
Here we go again... Never a dull moment chez Tatoeba.
Is the schoolyard full or are we expecting more kids to play here? Obama awaits me, so let's finish this game quickly, please.
Go and have your meeting with Obama. Wouldn't want you running late...
So now your 2 accomplices are mute, and you're always at the center of every one of these games, will you explain to me what this is about and how come I was involved in this, here on the public wall of Tatoeba?
I believe they were poking fun at your tendency to make a big deal out of things. Personally, I find your dedication admirable, but certainly can empathize with their viewpoint :-)
And since when Tatoeba's public wall - fully indexed by search engines - has become a space to vilify specific members of its community?
This practice has a name, it is "public lynching".
Do you clearly realise what you and your friends are doing?
I believe that the joke was in good humor ;-)
And you are now, unfortunately, proving them right.
What exactly am I proving? That I don't accept being named in public spaces where I have nothing to do? Or slandered in the same public spaces?
Yes, I do very much prove that.
This matter is very straightforward: The wall is a publicly indexed space where only topics related to the functioning of this service and associated community should appear, to the exclusion of the slandering of its members.
Subsequently, I demand unequivocal public apologies and I request sanctions against the members who have used this space to gratuitously slander me, so they will become unable to do it again in the future.
Does that prove you right, now?
I'm insulted that you'd use this wall-of-righteous-logic approach with me, and expect me to take it seriously. We've known each other for ages now... Come on. Seriously. Anyway, good night to you, sir. The day ends in Europe.
If we don't solve the problem here, we'll have to determine which court will have authority. Maybe in Xinjiang, what do you think? I bet Chinese courts are very lenient on slander...
That's a bit far away, as much as I'd love to go back.
Anyway, I prefer London, that's where the damages are the highest, along with the lawyers' fees...
Call blay_paul and ask him to arrange housing, transportation, etc.
Sorry, I thought there was water in that bucket...
I think you must have been drinking other spirits along with your water, tonight...
I'll put it on that for now.
"Fan the flames" ?!? I wasn't even participating in this debate and suddenly my pseudo pops up ON THE WALL without a reason and I am the one to "fan the flames" and requested to send messages when you call me a "poor fish" on this very wall ?!
And who are you anyway to speak in the name of "The community"?
Did you just a make a poll to authorise you to insult me in public?
I haven't received the form, although I am also part of this community, whether you like it or not...
I was just implying that I had used a particularly emphatic phrasing in stating my opinion on that subject.
I still don't get why my pseudo would be mentioned in there...
>> The problem is that to judge that properly, one needs
>> to be sufficiently proficient, not only in the grammar
>> of each of the languages one's translating from and
>> to, but also in the cultures in which the sentences
>> are used.
> Yes, exactly. And nothing less will do! (OK, maybe channelling sacredceltic a little there)
Well, I guess nothing less can do, seeing how anything less than "sufficient" would be insufficient. I apologise for the tautology! :-S
I hope Tatoebans will appreciate the intent despite the poor delivery (sort of like translating the meaning rather than the words...).
>> This is made still more complicated by the fact that
>> we're fundamentally bad at knowing how much we don't know.
> Lemon juice bandit!
For other fans of epistemological psychology:
One of my favourite books - on the subject of translation - says basically that the first thing a true translator has to do is forget the words of the text they are translating. What is all important is that the translation is what would be written (said) in the context of the original version.
To give one example from the book "Reserved only". In the context of a sign on the Japanese train 'nozomi' the translation would be 全車指定席 - literally meaning "all carriages (have) only reserved seating".
So, in conclusion, I would say that no liberal is too liberal providing the context is known, specified or imaginable and providing the translation is appropriate for that context.
are we helping google translate in that way ??
yeah i mean that...or why are we translating..
i skipped some "welcome" steps when im registering.
Sentences can be used by anyone, see page in the bottom.
Currently we have not contacted Google, but since it uses the data from the Internet, it may use it... who knows? At least all Tatoeba is indexed by Google.
The main idea is that anyone who needs a database of sentences can use Tatoeba to make applications. DB can be downloaded here: http://tatoeba.org/eng/download...mple_sentences
One purpose is learning.
For example, an online dictionary WWWJDIC uses English-Japanese pairs from Tatoeba.
Language learning programmes can be created. For example, CK has also created a Japanese reading practice program based on data from Tatoeba (I don't remember the link exactly).
Well, Tatoeba can be used for any application. For example, Braulio Bezerra created a typing game with these sentences.
(Also, Tatoeba itself has some functions for learning too. For example, you can create a list and export it to Anki.)
yeah of course, welcome in tatoeba :)
You can be philanthropist and think you do it to create somewhat the wikipedia of language, and thanks to you people will do not need to pay anything to have an access to knowledge.
You can also view it as a way to improve yourself. We have more and more people, so not it's more and more probable that someone will review your translations and point out mistakes. It's more lively than a textbook, funnier. And far less expensive ^^
Maybe something less "obvious" but translating makes tatoeba more interesting and more lively which makes it attract more people, and in these people maybe some will contribute too in languages you want.
You mean "does the data are reused by google translate ?" ?
No, it's the CIA we're helping, but the FSB is injecting defective translations to counter-attack...
Eventually, the Chinese will take over...
It is Quechua
tag with quechua
** Difficulty tagging **
I feel that tags like ‘difficult’, ‘easy’ and so on would be very helpful. However, I’m reluctant to add a lot of these unless they have a definite meaning.
IMHO we need a clear guidlines about what can be tagged as ‘easy’. Maybe we can even break it up into 2 different tags: ‘easy vocabulary’ (e.g. all words are in the first 2000 in the frequency dictionary), ‘easy grammar’ (a simple sentence w/out any complex grammar structures, etc.).
Are there any established systems of calculating a sentence difficulty?
I discussed some of this in a recent email to Trang.
The most practical way of assigning meaningful difficulty levels to examples is to match them up to popular international examinations for that language. For example, Japanese could have a "JLPT equivalent level" noted (JLPT 4 is the easiest, JLPT 1 is the hardest).
It is possible (if not very easy) to semi-automatically assign JLPT level to sentences based on the vocabulary and kanji they use.
Well, this may be a viable solution for Japanese or Chinese, but I’ve never heard about international tests in Russian, let alone in Ukrainian or Belarusian. Even if they do exist, they’re not divided into levels.
I feel that simply checking words in the frequency dictionary is the only way for Russian...
TORFL Test of Russian as a Foreign Language
Elementary, Basic, then levels 1 to 4.
I’ll read about it, thank you.
I would like to suggest that tags not be used to address individual people. If you need to contact someone directly, that's what PMs are for. Could sysko or Trang delete the following two (empty) tags?