4 ms·
They don't tell where they took the translations from and who created these translations. Given your examples, I assume the whole thing is based on Gutenberg or
by stewbrew 8y ago
They don't tell where they took the translations from and who created these translations. Given your examples, I assume the whole thing is based on Gutenberg or some similar, not on machine translations. If it were humans who made these translations, deviations as you describe them are to be expected. Literary translations ofter are rather some kind of re-creation or interpretation of the original work.
- mstipetic 8y agoYeah, we took those translations off of a pre matched corpora of books. We did, however develop later a system for automatic matching of translations, but unfortunately didn't get to use it
- wenc 8y agoYes, the problem is most translations aren’t literal one-to-one translations. Literal translations are usually hard to read so some translators use “dynamic equivalency” while others paraphrase heavily. Unfortunately this can make machine linguistic matching difficult and unreliable. For instance, there are two translations of the Nordic classic Kristin Lavransdatter which both read differently and there are people who will argue passionately about which translation is best. Statistical machine translation uses curated parallel texts for training, but they tend to match with multiple corpora so the translation is some sort of average I believe. I wonder if matching with just one translation might produce less reliable results?