Have you ever considered learning Esperanto? To an Esperanto sentence, you can usually link as many Italian translations as to an English one (if that's the point of your creating these simple English [and as of late Chinese] sentences). The advantage of Esperanto is that Esperanto sentences can't be considered non-native sentences.

well, from now on i'll try to stick mostly to italian, to have more trustworthy contributions

@Pfirsichbaeumchen, I would like to ask you as an admin.

I wonder, we have so many international languages on Tatoeba.org: an Esperanto corpus, Lojban, Ido, Interlingua, Toki Pona and even Volapuk. But we don't have a Simple English corpus. We can consider Simple English as a language without native speakers, like Esperanto (SE is a controlled language, based on the natural English language, but it doesn't have sound "natural" for any native speaker of English and it has been designed for international communications, like Esperanto and other planned languages).

"The advantage of Esperanto is that Esperanto sentences can't be considered non-native sentences. "
But it doesn't mean, all the sentences in Esperanto are trustworthed and all the contributors are equal. Beginner's sentences most likely have mistakes and need check (like in any language). So, we can say they "contaminate" the epo corpus in the same way, like any other corpus.
Do your words mean you encourage everyone to post the Epo sentences here, even if they are not so good?

This kind of "Simple English" is called "Pidgin English", I believe. The problem with pidgins (of any language, not only English) is that they are usually heavily influenced by the native languages of people speaking this or that pidgin. I really doubt that we want any pidgin to become a part of Tatoeba.

Why not? It can give any people possability to translate their original sentences from their native language to simple and understandable for most people here language. In my opinion, it's the reason why Esperanto and other planned languages have been created.

Are you sure your Russian flavoured English pidgin will be understandable by people speaking Japanese (Chinese, Liberian, Thai, etc.) English pidgin and vice versa? Who will decide what is wrong and what is right when there are no rules and dictionaries?
If you need some English-based planned language, there is Basic-English (http://basic-english.org/) you might want to propose to use here. It has its own Institute at least.

I think we should distinguish between Simple English and bad English.

The Simple English Wikipedia says "Do not use bad English: This is Simple English, not Bad English."
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wik...What_not_to_do

Simple English sentences written carefully so that everyone can understand them are great.
Bad English would simply lead to misunderstandings and mess up the corpus.

Generally, I don't have any seriuos troubles in writing communications with non-natives in English. With natives it can be more tricky.

"If you need some English-based planned language, there is Basic-English (http://basic-english.org/) you might want to propose to use here. It has its own Institute at least. "

You are right, it can be a good solution.

Another solution can be using classical BrE or AmE rules, but without estimating "is it sounds natural or not" for natives. In other words, as an ideal level of speaking for that corpus we could take the level of fluent non-native speaker. (C1-C2, I think). I can write more about this if someone is interested in it.

By the way, is anything wrong with this sentence?

"This is my Japanese friend Taro." would be perfectly fine, right?

http://tatoeba.org/jpn/sentences/show/3281113
http://tatoeba.org/jpn/sentences/show/3279485

@tommy_san

Every language can be "bad", even planned language without any native speakers.

Of course. If there were no good or bad in a certain language, that language wouldn't be reliable to convey the meaning and the nuances of sentences in our languages.

We want the users of our sentences to understand our sentences as precisely as possible, don't we?

In every language there is "good" and "bad" things.

The idea of Pfirsichbaeumchen is using Esperanto as a "connecting link" between different languages. My idea is using Simple English (or Basic English).

> The idea of Pfirsichbaeumchen is using Esperanto as a "connecting link" between different languages. My idea is using Simple English (or Basic English).

The problem is that Basic English is too basic. The Basic English word for "chimpanzee" is "monkey". How does the german translator know, that he has to use "Schimpanse" and not the common "Affe"?

Actually, I can't see how one language can be a "connecting link" between any other languages. If I want a translation of my Russian sentence into, say, Japanese, I can't care less if there is already a translation of my sentence into Esperanto or Basic-English or whatever. But if there is one and if some Japanese contributor translates it into Japanese, who said that this translation will be of any use for me? Who will guarantee that we are not playing "Chinese whispers" with that "language-in-the-middle", especially if we're dealing with some simplified language?
So, why don't we just translate to our strongest languages only and avoid adding sentences in languages we know not so well no matter if it's Esperanto or anything else?

sharptoothed, i do agree. imo it's the best solution also to avoid endless discussions on which language we should use as an intermediate language between two other languages, since anyone might have his/her own preferences for that

@PaulP
"The problem is that Basic English is too basic."

Yes, that's the problem of Basic English. That's why I personally would prefer the common English vocabulary and grammar, but without estimating of slight nuances, which native speakers of English could consider as "sounding less than natural". In my opinion, it should be a main difference between English and Simple English corpuses.

@sharptoothed
If you know any language well enough you can judge if the undirect translation, making from English or Esperanto, matches with your original sentence and link them if they match. Personally, I got Italian translation so way the couple of times and linked them. Also, other people who know Russian and Japanese well can link them. But if there is not "connecting link" we need any native Japanese speakers, who know Russian and can translate from it. It's much less likely than having Japanese speakers, who know English. And for sentences in smaller languages it could be almost unlikely to have any translations.

"So, why don't we just translate to our strongest languages only and avoid adding sentences in languages we know not so well no matter if it's Esperanto or anything else? "

Because it puts speaker of different languages into extremally unequal conditions. (See above). Of course, if one's language is not so widespread he/she can just translate from another languages, but it's much more fun to add their own original sentences in my opinion. That's the real problem.
We can just say: "It's life" and we can try to do something with it which is much better in my opinion.

@Selena777
I think that's a bad idea. We shouldn't try to translate all the sentences to all the languages. Sometimes it's impossible. Our goal is to make translations that would sound natural. If you want to make your sentence understandable for others you can just leave a comment or explanation. I use English as a communication tool but I prefer improving my knowledges to making it simple.

>Who will decide what is wrong and what is right when there are no rules and dictionaries?

I think people spoke languages well before rules and dictionaries were established... :P

Having "universal" language that most people understand guarantees nothing. It just increases probability that one day we'll get a sentence in some language A and other sentence in another language B that matches it, and there will be someone proficient enough in both languages to link those sentences together. The more languages A and B differ from each other and from that "universal" language, the less that probability will be.
Now let's suppose that there's only one speaker of a language A on Tatoeba. Now he adds a sentence in this language and then translates it to some "universal" language B. Now other user translates from B to his strongest language C the first user doesn't know. Who is in position to link the sentence in language A to the sentence in language C? We still need a user who (more or less) knows both A and C, don't we?

> I think people spoke languages well before rules and dictionaries were established...

Just don't lift phrases out of context and everything will be OK. Besides, absence of written rules and dictionaries doesn't mean their absolute absence. ;-)

@CK
How about "This is my Japanese friend Taro"? Does it still mean that Taro is the only Japanese friend? Or is it also a sentence you wouldn't use?

@Selena777
> Of course, if one's language is not so widespread he/she can just translate from another languages, but it's much more fun to add their own original sentences in my opinion.

I agree with you on this point. However, I don't think that adding vague pseudo-English translations is good for the destiny of minor languages.

I tried translating two of my favorite sentences into English so that more people can translate them into their languages. They might not sound very natural to native speakers, but you must be able to understand what they mean. Do you think I should add them to the corpus?

[#2997554] 「どうして靴下っていつも片一方だけなくなるんだろう？」「両方なくなったらなくなったことに気づかないんだよ」「あ、そっか」
"Why is socks always only one become no?" "If both become no, you don't realize it became no." "Oh, I see."

[#3276761] 「メアリーって彼氏いるの？」「いる……って言ったらもう会ってくれない？」
"Mary, are you a boyfriend?" "If said yes will meet me no more?"

@sharptoothed
It should work following way: if I add my original Russian sentence I have some chance to get a translation of it. If I add also an English translation (for those sentences that I can translate well in English) I have much more chances to get it. If I get the Italian translation I can compare it with my original sentences and link it if they match. Of course, sometimes they are not match, but often they do. Also, someone who know another languages (like French, Spanish etc) can link Spanish, French etc translations with the original.

For small languages it works the same way. If a speaker of A know also B and English, he/she can link B sentences as I said. Then it's much more likely to appear another speaker of A, who know French or German to link them to A sentences, than a native speaker of French, who knows the small language A.

@CK
I have just one question to you: if you were a native speaker of a language from which your sentences had a little chance to be translated, would you add tons of them on Tatoeba.org?

@tommy san
#2997554 「どうして靴下っていつも片一方だけなくなるんだろう？」「両方なくなったらなくなったことに気づかないんだよ」「あ、そっか」
"Why is socks always only one become no?" "If both become no, you don't realize it became no." "Oh, I see."

#3276761 「メアリーって彼氏いるの？」「いる……って言ったらもう会ってくれない？」
"Mary, are you a boyfriend?" "If said yes will meet me no more?"

It seems your English sentences aren't understandable enough... Maybe, you choose to difficult Japanese originals to translate? Or they just so specific for Japanese to be translated.

***

For those, who wants to try how it works I can suggest an experiment. I can write in comments to some of my Russian sentences their English translation. Then Tommy can translate them into Japanese and Sharptoothed can decide if they match with my Russian original or not.
I'm not sure how it works for Japanese, so I would like translations to some European languages as well (especially Italian).

What do you think?

> Besides, absence of written rules and dictionaries doesn't mean their absolute absence.

Of course. It means absence of absolute and unquestioned rules though. If something's a "rule" it's only because most people feel like it, not because some people command it.

> "The idea of Pfirsichbaeumchen is using Esperanto as a "connecting link" between different languages."

I think that's more than just an idea; it's simply working quite well and has already contributed a lot to the growth and growing coherence of the corpus(es) of Tatoeba.

> I can suggest an experiment.

Well, I have nothing against this experiment. Though I think, on success, it will prove mostly that for this particular sentence your English is good enough for Tommy to understand and my Japanese is good enough to judge if Tommy's translation matches Russian. :-)

> it's simply working quite well

Proof, Alexander, we need proof. :-)

imo another way to make users see that a sentence is reliable is to add an 'OK' tag to existing sentences that are acceptable if they're added by non-native speakers. currently i'm doing this work for italian. if i see a sentence in italian which is added by a non-native speaker and i think it's good, i tag it as OK, because it's a correct sentence, and anyone can see it's a good sentence even if it has been added by a non-native speaker

I wanted to show what would happen if a native Japanese speaker who's not very good at English or who thinks it's stupid to obey the rules made by English speakers tried to "contribute" to Tatoeba by translating Japanese sentences into "English". If you (like me) think it's unacceptable, what do you think is the difference between acceptable and unacceptable sentences?

I only want to translate the sentences I can trust. I don't want to translate a sentence that I don't know if I can trust.
When I translate a German sentence written (or proofread) by a native speaker, I can use any (good) dictionary and I can ask any (good?) native speaker when I'm not sure what it means. I enjoy this process because I learn German from it. And if I happen to succeed in translating it well enough, It can be used by German speakers who's studying Japanese as well as Japanese speakers who's studying German.
When I translate a sentence written by a non-native speaker, I won't be able to know for sure what it means, no matter how many dictionaries and people I consult, since the author might not be using the language the way "normal" people do. I hate seeing people discussing how to interpret and translate a strange-sounding sentence (unless it's a poem). And when it turns out that my translation doesn't match the original, all my efforts will only be meaningful in that I added one (hopefully) trustworthy Japanese sentence. It just doesn't worth it.

That being said, I'm willing to take part in the experiment because I like experiments. But make sure you write English sentences that sound unnatural to native speakers, otherwise it would be just an experiment about indirect translations. And it might be better to do it in private messages. You shouldn't show me the originals because I can understand a bit of Russian.

@al_ex_an_der
Yes, it works, and it could work even better, if all the Esperanto speakers paid some attention to translating the existing Esperanto sentences in their own languages. In my opinion, Simple English corpus can work by that way, too.

Point is, can you ascertain the way "normal" people use their language? It's not like everyone speaks the same way. There are various registers, slang variations, jargon, even some individual peculiarities since everyone has their own unique mind.

My position is clear: if, for a given sentence, there exists a situation in which "at least one" "reasonable" native speaker's sense of language isn't tickled, then this is a valid sentence insofar as it is a valid part of language. It may be more or less "natural", which is to be noted, but it's certainly valid and thus fit to stay here.

Of course, what is reasonable is arguable since everybody has their own common sense, despite it being declared "common". (Funny: the Russian equivalent would literally translate as "sound sense", which it is only logical for everyone to have their own idea of.)

However, I feel I can safely vouch that extremities never agree with "sound" common sense except in extreme situations, which this obviously isn't, and what is currently preached/advocated by elite members like CK is, per my understanding, quite an extremity. I say that levels of proficiency aren't a fluke and a higher level of proficiency enables the speaker to produce sentences of reasonable average quality as far as his (her, their &c.) knowledge allows, which is less then native speaker's knowledge but not non-existent.

@Guybrush88
You are doing a good job, thanks.

By the way, would you like to take part in the experiment? If you're not sure about your translations would match enough with the Russian original, you can just add them as single sentences. I'll link them to my Russian sentences, if they match.

@Selena777, i can add translations to sentences, but i prefer that someone else will link them to russian, i think it's safer this way. plus, i don't understand russian, so i don't know how to translate sentences in russian

@tommy_san
In my opinion you confuse non-native and non-competent speakers. Any non-native speakers can understand others and be understood by others, if they have enough language skills.

Ok, I'll send to you 5 English translation in PM. I won't post my Russian sentences, untill I get Japanese translations from you. Then I'll add my Russian sentences and send your translations to Sharptoothed.

@sharptoothed

I'll send you my original Russian sentences in PM (in order Tommy can't see them) and them send you Tommy's Japanese translations).

@Guybrush88

Please just add your translations, I'll check if they match.

> In my opinion you confuse non-native and non-competent speakers. Any non-native speakers can understand others and be understood by others, if they have enough language skills.

Then how can we distinguish between non-native speakers with enough skills who produce sentences that sound unnatural to native speakers and non-competent speakers? If we don't think about this problem, we'll suffer from masses of bad sentences.

When I wrote "sound less then natural" I mean some slight nuances, that make a sentence a bit strange for a native, but still absolutely understandable. For example, there was a sentence "give me a light and a sigarette", or something like that. CK said it sounded unnatural cause native speakers always say "a sigarette and a light". But that sentence is absolutely understandable for every native or competent non-native speaker. I meant things something like that.

А может ли один человек говорить за всех носителей? Это как та история с "плохим прикусом", которого (на моё удивление), кроме меня, никто не слышал.

Selena777: "Yes, it works, and it could work even better, if all the Esperanto speakers paid some attention to translating the existing Esperanto sentences in their own languages."

I fully agree. In this translation direction should be done more.

@Ooneykcall
В русском тоже можно такие примеры привести. Например, "черный конь" звучит неестественно, а "вороной конь" - естественно. "У нас есть гуси" тоже вряд ли кто скажет (разве что дети), а "мы держим гусей" - OK. Хотя в разговоре с человеком, плохо знающим русский язык, логичнее использовать именно эти "ненатуральные" варианты.

Неестественно? Непривычно, нестандартно, но неестественность, по моему разумению, это именно что-то "корявое". То есть я различаю "так сказать нельзя" и "так сказать можно бы, но мы так обычно не говорим".

По-моему, "grammaticaly OK, but less than natural" - это оно и есть.
Приведите тогда пример "чего-нибудь корявого".

Если less than natural корявое, а natural полагаются только используемые фразы, то всякая новая придумка, в литературе или в разговоре, будет по умолчанию "корявым". Что-то здесь не так.

Не только ведь в грамматике дело, есть ещё синтаксис, лексическая сочетаемость, наконец, просто соответствие искомому смыслу. Грамматически верное выражение вполне может быть корявым.

@Ooneykcall
Под "less than natural" я понимаю фразы, которые в принципе правильные (и всем понятные), но "так не говорят", потому что "ну, так получилось". Корявая фраза - это когда мысль выражена запутано, даже если грамматически верно. Нейтивы тоже иногда говорят корявыми фразами (кто-то чаще, кто-то реже).

Когда я использую английский для общения, например, с китайцем или турком, мне без разницы, натуральны ли мои фразы для нейтивов. Главное, чтобы они были понятны собеседнику. Если фраза звучит "less than natural" китаец или турок этого и не заметит, но если она корява, это может существенно усложнить понимание. Поэтому корявых фраз я пытаюсь избегать, насколько возможно.

В таком случае почему "недоестественные" фразы считаются "недействительными", когда они вполне возможны и понятны? Это какой-то предрассудок.

@Ooneykcall
По-моему, сейчас спор беспредметен.
Вот несколько примеров:

"У меня большая семья" - ОК (грамматически правильное и абсолютно натуральное предложение).
"Я имею большую семью" - не ОК, коряво, но понятно (такое употребление слова "иметь" не характерно для русского языка)
"Моя семья большая" - грамматически правильно, не коряво, абсолютно понятно, но "sounds less than natural". (следующий вариант более естественный)
"Наша семья большая" - ОК и абсолютно естественно сказать так.
"Я имею большая семья" - совсем не ОК, грамматическая ошибка (хотя по-прежнему понятно).
"У меня большая фамилия" - калька с английского, грамматически абсолютно правильное предложение, но не понятное.

Какие из этих предложений кажутся вам незаслуженно "недействительными"?

Два последних, конечно же, "не работают". Тут всякий почувствует сразу ошибку.
Второе не может иметь (в устах носителя) нейтральную коннотацию, а например humorous; соответственно потребуется тег, а с ним - пожалуйста!

Один, три, четыре в порядке, а вопрос по третьему подавляется разбором по ситуациям: нетрудно скомбинировать такую, в которой акцент на себе осмыслен. Дотошный contributor может оставить на эту тему комментарий. (Вообще не хватает указаний частотности, надо сказать.) Однако невысокая частотность не является поводом к отторжению.

Ясно, что проще сказать, что вот [exhibit 4] можно, а [exhibit 3] не стоит, и запомнить так легче, но это неточно, а точно сказать, что [exhibit 4] - это default (по умолчанию), как его и надо расценивать и переводить нейтральное нейтральным, а [exhibit 3] - это уже с некоторым вывертом, но в принципе оно есть, ничем не запрещено.

Естественно требовать наличия указания к предложениям типа #2 (тега) и #4 (можно без такового), ежели кому любо их заливать, но исключать их из расммотрения вообще попросту неточно.

Если humorous, то можно и "У меня большая фамилия" сказать, типа человек корчит из себя иностранца...

Тут действительно проблема в самой структуре Tatoeba.org, что нет возможности сортировки "стандартных" и "нестандартных" предложений. Для большинства изучающих интересны в первую очередь именно "стандартные" предложения. По-моему, хорошо бы иметь возможность сортировки, чтобы те, кого интересует "нестандарт" (диалекты, архаизмы или просто необычные эксперименты в области построения фраз) могли их целенаправленно загружать, а те, кому это не надо, получали только "стандартные" фразы.

...а в чём комический эффект? Именно что в намеренной ошибке. Она никуда, собственно, не исчезает и именно в таком качестве продолжает осознаваться говорящим, разве нет? Её только используют для комизма.
А вот второе предложение - результат расширения (пусть и, допустим, комического, а может, ещё какого) реального применения "иметь", имеющего место в формальном языке (хотя расширение тут даже двойное: и первое лицо, и наличие личного местоимения как такового как раз формальным предложениям с "иметь" типа "Женат, имеет двух детей" несвойственны).

Конечно, можно аргументировать и дальше отодвигать границы уместного, просто совсем уж редкие окказионализмы, верно, мало востребованы всё-таки.
По существу идея хорошая, но реализация может долго ждать своего часа. Тут и так доблестные программисты, смотрю, просто падают под грузом кучи дел.

@CK
Sorry. It's not related to this sentence, but there is a possibility, anybody else want to join this discussion. If we use the wall, there will be too many posts on the wall, and they will hide useful questions, etc.

A discussion has spurred on what is to be welcome and unwelcome on Tatoёba. The point is to have an open discussion so the opinions are visible to everyone else. (Of course, one should know to stop when it's about to turn into personal chit-chat... this might possibly be the time.) Technically the Wall *should* be the place for that, but its current execution is horribly inconvenient for long talks.

У каждого свое представление о комизме (как и о границах уместного). То, что вам кажется уместным, для кого-то совсем неуместно, а для кого-то, возможно, уместно то, что совсем неуместно для вас...

Use your common sense please.

*sigh*
Ну в пень тогда, раз мы все слишком крутолобы, чтобы договориться.
(This is where discussion gets inappropriate to keep it here, I concede.)

By the way / кстати / übrigens / cetere:
http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/3385203 ☺

Кстати, Александр, что ты думаешь насчет того, чтобы провести подобный эксперимент, используя эсперанто вместо английского?
http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentence...comment-378129
Если интересно, напиши в личных сообщениях, здесь ругаются из-за флуда.