Hans Åberg via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Sun Nov 11 17:55:10 CST 2018
> On 12 Nov 2018, at 00:00, Asmus Freytag (c) <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2018 1:37 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
>>> On 11 Nov 2018, at 22:16, Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>
>>> On 11/11/2018 12:32 PM, Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
>> One should not rely too much these autotranslation tools, but it may be quicker using some OCR program and then correct by hand, than entering it all by hand. The setup did not admit transliterating Hebrew script directly into German. It seems that the translator program recognizes it as Yiddish, though it might be as a result of an assumption it makes.
> Well, the OCR does a much better job than the "translation".
Not so surprising, but it did not have a literal OCR. An OCR can improve transliteration by guessing the language to fill in partial recognition, so there is a fallacy already there.
>> The German translation it gives:
>> Unsere Sünde kommt von der Seite der Verletzten, nachdem sie darauf gewartet hat, erwartet zu werden, und nachdem sie die Vorstellungen dieser rabbinischen Andachten kennengelernt haben, haben sie begonnen, mit der Motivation zu schließen:
> This is simply utter nonsense and does not even begin to correlate with the transliteration.
>> And in English:
>> Our sin is coming out of the side of the injured side, after waiting to be expected, and having the concepts of these rabbinical devotiones, they have begun to agree with the motivation:
> In fact, the English translation makes somewhat more sense. For example, "Gegenpartei" in many legal contexts (which this sample isn't, by the way) can in fact be translated as "injured party", which in turn might correlate with an "injured side" as rendered. However "Seite der Verletzten" makes no sense in this context, unless there's a Hebrew word that accidentally matches and got picked up.
> (I'm suspicious that some of the auto translation does in fact work like many real translations which often are not direct, but involve an intermediate language - simply because it's not possible to find sufficient translators between random pairs of languages.).
Google translation uses AI by comparing texts in both languages, the Rosetta stone method. Therefore, there is a poor result for languages where there are less available texts to compare with. Sometimes it can be better than dictionaries if it concerns more modern terms. But in other cases, it may just be gibberish.
>> From the original Hebrew script, in case someone wants to try out more possibilities:
>> וויר זינד אונס דעססען בעוואוסט דאסס פֿאָן זייטע דער גע־ געפארטהיי וועדער רייע , נאך איינזיכט צו ערווארטען איזט אונד דאסט זיא דיא קאַנסעקווענצען דיעזער ראבבינישען גוטאכטען פֿאָן זיך אבשיטטעלען ווערדען מיט דער מאָטיווירונג , דאסס :
> I don't know what that will tell you. You have a rendering that produces coherent text which closely matches a phonetic transliteration. What else do you hope to learn?
It is up to whoever likes to try (FYI).
More information about the Unicode