🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 15 Jun 1993, Glenn Adams wrote:

> I am quite familiar with the capabilites and utility of SYSTRAN, ALPS,
> METAL and many other MT systems.  They are not capable of "fully" automated
> translation.  They are expensive and difficult to master (at least in
> their details -- just try altering the syntactical formalism of any of
> these systems).  They are tools for human translators to use, which is how
> you use them.  I don't see any disagreement between our statements at
> all.

>
> The reason I make this statement is because I commonly encounter the idea
> that such "fully" automated translation is possible.  Perhaps the readers
> of this list are informed enough not to make such a leap of faith.  In that
> case my statement was unnecessary.

Glenn are you a translator by any chance? This discussion has been (and is
still) bantered back and forth in the translation community for years.
Moreover, it has caused a significant rift within the translation
community itself between MT proponents (the recently formed AMTA) and
those who realize that "human" translation is the only way to ensure
accuracy and stylistic integrity.

I'm sure you saw the recent Byte magazine issue on MT (I believe it was in
February or March). It was a typical example of the doubletalk concerning
MT--a fancy game of smoke and mirrors, which obscured many of the facts.
Indeed, the information presented in those articles could have been
written 20 years ago (with the exception of the PC-based software packages
of course). There really has been little advance in the field here. And
anyone who is familiar with the process of translation understands the
impossibility of "fully" automating the process. Sure, METEO works up in
Canada, but look at the context.

Robert Bononno