3 ms·
The article has some good points about marginalised languages and dangers of incorrect use, but it is wrapped in awful nationalist and tribal rhetoric. It divid
by dvdkon 3y ago
The article has some good points about marginalised languages and dangers of incorrect use, but it is wrapped in awful nationalist and tribal rhetoric. It divides the world into in/out groups based on heritage and claims total ownership of a language. This goes beyond protecting their heritage and promoting it, they want to keep it for themselves, never letting anyone else use it: "If anyone is to profit from te reo Māori it should be Māori and Māori alone". They decry developed societies making technological progress under a racial guise: "... open sourcing ... best serves those who already have a foot in the industry, which is mostly White and Asian men".
Claiming that you alone have a right to work with your native language is about as ridiculous as claiming that only Italians can make pasta. I don't see the point anyhow; who cares about the motivations of corporations if the product is good?
- vintermann 3y agoI don't know how it is with Maori, but I have seen many lament that for Sami (it's Sami people's day, by the way! Lihkku sámi álbmotbeivviin!), people are afraid to speak it because they don't have enough experience and are afraid to do it wrong. It's not an entirely unreasonable concern that a language should get influenced/corrupted by a bad machine translator that is just good enough that people can pick up its errors. But humans can easily pick up errors from poor speakers as well... I think that as long as the prestige resides with experienced human speakers, the risk isn't great.
- lores 3y agoAn interesting development, that. After American English or Scouse or Scots, all "corruptions" of standard British English that became established enough to be their own thing, we could soon get Machine Translation English. The Guardian will be very unhappy about it.