🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SPQR.90Sep25125027@manutius.ecs.soton.ac.uk> spqr@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sebastian Rahtz) writes:

>    But I have read a great deal of
>    `english' which was generated by people looking up things word by
>    word. I'd rather your `stupid translator' was banned by some
>    international convention, thanks all the same.

Yes and no.. It's true that automatic translation (even when performed by
real people :-) is a catastrophe. But a simple tiny bilingual dictionnary
would help me a lot, just like "look" and "webster" (the NeXT version) help
me a lot. You cannot imagine the pleasure of using an online dictionnary
compared to a paper one. It's so fast that you can look at three or four
definitions and follow synonyms and references just to find the "fine"
word.

That's Ok, but when you don't even know where to start, then you'll be happy
with a stupid translator.. Let me give you an example: in France I used a
five volume french-english dictionnary to write ESPRIT repports and I sure
made *a lot* of mistakes! Here I use a 2/2.5 inch (thanks "units" :-) tiny
dictionnary of 70.000 words and it works just fine! But then I have to talk _a
lot_ with my roomates/workmates for more explanations of sub-meanings etc..
Well, the NeXT-Webster dictionnary would be the equivalent of my roomates for
people abroad.

In other words: YES, computerized devices work when they are well used. I just
dream of a look/webster/translator in a hypertext environment like TeXinfo..
That would be *great* ! :-)

Now please, don't flame me for my mistakes in this article! Sue NeXT instead!

    :-D :-D :-D

Cheers,
Christophe.

      -=- As Mr Greenaway might say: "Bon appetit! (It's French)" -=-