OT? The dangers of translator-bots

Hi all.

I just saw a commercial on one of the international cable TV
channels.
The subject of the commercial was a car, the voice-over had been
translated, obviously by some translator-bot, to Norweigan and was
read by somebody who obviously have Norwegian as her native
language.

The English starting text was 'a revolutionary car', as in 'a car
that
introduces new and exciting technology.' The Norwegian text was 'en
revolusion�r bil'. As in 'a car that wants to overthrow the present
government and install its own.'

To mirror the English semantics, one would have to say 'en
revolusjonerende bil.'

I don't know what pisses me off the most; the obvious mistranslation
that only a dictionary look-up translator-bot (human or computerized)
can do, or that whoever read the voice-over did not object to an
obviously meaningless statement.

Oh well.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> I just saw a commercial on one of the international cable TV
> channels.
> The subject of the commercial was a car, the voice-over had been
> translated, obviously by some translator-bot, to Norweigan and was
> read by somebody who obviously have Norwegian as her native
> language.
> 
> The English starting text was 'a revolutionary car', as in 'a car
> that
> introduces new and exciting technology.' The Norwegian text was 'en
> revolusion�r bil'. As in 'a car that wants to overthrow the present
> government and install its own.'
> 
> To mirror the English semantics, one would have to say 'en
> revolusjonerende bil.'
> 
> I don't know what pisses me off the most; the obvious mistranslation
> that only a dictionary look-up translator-bot (human or computerized)
> can do, or that whoever read the voice-over did not object to an
> obviously meaningless statement.

Or perhaps you should deal with it as the joke that it is.  Tasteless, 
maybe, but definitely funny.

Get a picture of the car in question, and photoshop it with bandoliers 
across the grills and some big guns sticking out the windows, and 
caption it with "now _this_ is a revolusion�r bil".  Then post it on 
flickr, and make sure to copy the URL to the ad agency in question.

-- 
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

On May 9, 3:38&#4294967295;am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I just saw a commercial on one of the international cable TV
> channels.
> The subject of the commercial was a car, the voice-over had been
> translated, obviously by some translator-bot, to Norweigan and was
> read by somebody who obviously have Norwegian as her native
> language.
>
> The English starting text was 'a revolutionary car', as in 'a car
> that
> introduces new and exciting technology.' The Norwegian text was 'en
> revolusion&#4294967295;r bil'. As in 'a car that wants to overthrow the present
> government and install its own.'
>
> To mirror the English semantics, one would have to say 'en
> revolusjonerende bil.'
>
> I don't know what pisses me off the most; the obvious mistranslation
> that only a dictionary look-up translator-bot (human or computerized)
> can do, or that whoever read the voice-over did not object to an
> obviously meaningless statement.
>
> Oh well.
>
> Rune

It'll get better. Remember when speech recognition could hardly work.
Now in a low noise environment you can get 99% hit rate with
continuous speech.
The linguists will sort this one out - not an engineering problem.


Hardy

On 8 Mai, 23:36, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 9, 3:38=A0am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi all.
>
> > I just saw a commercial on one of the international cable TV
> > channels.
> > The subject of the commercial was a car, the voice-over had been
> > translated, obviously by some translator-bot, to Norweigan and was
> > read by somebody who obviously have Norwegian as her native
> > language.
>
> > The English starting text was 'a revolutionary car', as in 'a car
> > that
> > introduces new and exciting technology.' The Norwegian text was 'en
> > revolusion=E6r bil'. As in 'a car that wants to overthrow the present
> > government and install its own.'
>
> > To mirror the English semantics, one would have to say 'en
> > revolusjonerende bil.'
>
> > I don't know what pisses me off the most; the obvious mistranslation
> > that only a dictionary look-up translator-bot (human or computerized)
> > can do, or that whoever read the voice-over did not object to an
> > obviously meaningless statement.
>
> > Oh well.
>
> > Rune
>
> It'll get better. Remember when speech recognition could hardly work.
> Now in a low noise environment you can get 99% hit rate with
> continuous speech.
> The linguists will sort this one out

Are you sure? How would you ensure that one selects the
correct semantics of a statement like 'a revolutionary idea'?

The statement makes sense with both intepreterations of the
term 'revolutionary'.

> - not an engineering problem.

It is. If the workings of the translator-bot relies on
getting it right. Which happens to be the main purpose
of making a translator-bot in the first place...

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> 
> Hi all.
> 
> I just saw a commercial on one of the international cable TV
> channels.
> The subject of the commercial was a car, the voice-over had been
> translated, obviously by some translator-bot, to Norweigan and was
> read by somebody who obviously have Norwegian as her native
> language.
> 
> The English starting text was 'a revolutionary car', as in 'a car
> that
> introduces new and exciting technology.' The Norwegian text was 'en
> revolusion�r bil'. As in 'a car that wants to overthrow the present
> government and install its own.'

No it doesn't mean "new exciting technology" in English. What it means
is this car overthrows the previous regime and installs a new one. That
is, it means this car is a trend setter. After this car all other cars
will be different. But it isn't at all clear what that actually means.
Does it mean they have developed a way to manufacture cars much cheaper
than before? Does it mean that they brought tail fins back? Or does it
mean this car has a new propulsion system that will make all other
propulsion systems obsolete? Or is the advertisement just blowing hot
air? In other words, they could have specified that the price, or body
styling, or engine design was revolutionary, but they didn't. That
probably means that nothing at all is really revolutionary about this
car. 

> 
> To mirror the English semantics, one would have to say 'en
> revolusjonerende bil.'
> 
> I don't know what pisses me off the most; the obvious mistranslation
> that only a dictionary look-up translator-bot (human or computerized)
> can do, or that whoever read the voice-over did not object to an
> obviously meaningless statement.
>

Wasn't the statement obviously meaningless in the original English
version???

-jim

On 9 Mai, 16:10, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
>
> > Hi all.
>
> > I just saw a commercial on one of the international cable TV
> > channels.
> > The subject of the commercial was a car, the voice-over had been
> > translated, obviously by some translator-bot, to Norweigan and was
> > read by somebody who obviously have Norwegian as her native
> > language.
>
> > The English starting text was 'a revolutionary car', as in 'a car
> > that
> > introduces new and exciting technology.' The Norwegian text was 'en
> > revolusion=E6r bil'. As in 'a car that wants to overthrow the present
> > government and install its own.'
>
> No it doesn't mean "new exciting technology" in English. What it means
> is this car overthrows the previous regime and installs a new one. That
> is, it means this car is a trend setter. After this car all other cars
> will be different. But it isn't at all clear what that actually means.
> Does it mean they have developed a way to manufacture cars much cheaper
> than before? Does it mean that they brought tail fins back? Or does it
> mean this car has a new propulsion system that will make all other
> propulsion systems obsolete? Or is the advertisement just blowing hot
> air? In other words, they could have specified that the price, or body
> styling, or engine design was revolutionary, but they didn't. That
> probably means that nothing at all is really revolutionary about this
> car.

I don't remember the details of the ad, other than it was one
of those high-end Audi Sport Coupes.

> > To mirror the English semantics, one would have to say 'en
> > revolusjonerende bil.'
>
> > I don't know what pisses me off the most; the obvious mistranslation
> > that only a dictionary look-up translator-bot (human or computerized)
> > can do, or that whoever read the voice-over did not object to an
> > obviously meaningless statement.
>
> Wasn't the statement obviously meaningless in the original English
> version???

I don't know. Was it?

Rune

On 5/9/2010 10:10 AM, jim wrote:

   ...

> No it doesn't mean "new exciting technology" in English. What it means
> is this car overthrows the previous regime and installs a new one. That
> is, it means this car is a trend setter. After this car all other cars
> will be different. But it isn't at all clear what that actually means.
> Does it mean they have developed a way to manufacture cars much cheaper
> than before? Does it mean that they brought tail fins back? Or does it
> mean this car has a new propulsion system that will make all other
> propulsion systems obsolete? Or is the advertisement just blowing hot
> air? In other words, they could have specified that the price, or body
> styling, or engine design was revolutionary, but they didn't. That
> probably means that nothing at all is really revolutionary about this
> car.

The few car ads that aren't silly involve blatant snob appeal. (And many 
of the snob-appeal ads are silly too.) Given enough development, a 
machine can probably translate rational sentences, but few ads are 
rational. One car company calls its product the ultimate (i.e. last) 
driving machine. Context doesn't clarify whether "last" means "last 
year" or "the end of the line" -- there will never be another.

   ...

Jerry
-- 
"I view the progress of science as ... the slow erosion of the tendency
  to dichotomize." --Barbara Smuts, U. Mich.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 8 Mai, 23:36, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 9, 3:38 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi all.
>>> I just saw a commercial on one of the international cable TV
>>> channels.
>>> The subject of the commercial was a car, the voice-over had been
>>> translated, obviously by some translator-bot, to Norweigan and was
>>> read by somebody who obviously have Norwegian as her native
>>> language.
>>> The English starting text was 'a revolutionary car', as in 'a car
>>> that
>>> introduces new and exciting technology.' The Norwegian text was 'en
>>> revolusion&#4294967295;r bil'. As in 'a car that wants to overthrow the present
>>> government and install its own.'
>>> To mirror the English semantics, one would have to say 'en
>>> revolusjonerende bil.'
>>> I don't know what pisses me off the most; the obvious mistranslation
>>> that only a dictionary look-up translator-bot (human or computerized)
>>> can do, or that whoever read the voice-over did not object to an
>>> obviously meaningless statement.
>>> Oh well.
>>> Rune
>> It'll get better. Remember when speech recognition could hardly work.
>> Now in a low noise environment you can get 99% hit rate with
>> continuous speech.
>> The linguists will sort this one out
> 
> Are you sure? How would you ensure that one selects the
> correct semantics of a statement like 'a revolutionary idea'?
> 
> The statement makes sense with both intepreterations of the
> term 'revolutionary'.
> 
>> - not an engineering problem.
> 
> It is.

No!
Mechanical translators are of *necessity* mechanical.
Faulr lies with idiot human downstream of *MECHANICAL* translator.

Reminds me of local "dumb" (in many senses) local news 
person/thing/??? who when reporting the arrest of a child 
molester *REPEATEDLY* referred to one of the charges as being 
"sexual rape". Idiot meant "statutory rape". {In US "statutory 
rape" refers to intercourse with some one UNDER age of consent 
(specific age varies with jurisdiction").

If "rape" how can it *NOT* be "sexual"?

Someone suggested sending sending appropriate picture to content 
provider. I suggest sending picture to "talking head" and its 
supervisor.



> If the workings of the translator-bot relies on
> getting it right. Which happens to be the main purpose
> of making a translator-bot in the first place...
> 
> Rune

Jerry Avins wrote:
> On 5/9/2010 10:10 AM, jim wrote:
> 
>   ...
> 
>> No it doesn't mean "new exciting technology" in English. What it means
>> is this car overthrows the previous regime and installs a new one. That
>> is, it means this car is a trend setter. After this car all other cars
>> will be different. But it isn't at all clear what that actually means.
>> Does it mean they have developed a way to manufacture cars much cheaper
>> than before? Does it mean that they brought tail fins back? Or does it
>> mean this car has a new propulsion system that will make all other
>> propulsion systems obsolete? Or is the advertisement just blowing hot
>> air? In other words, they could have specified that the price, or body
>> styling, or engine design was revolutionary, but they didn't. That
>> probably means that nothing at all is really revolutionary about this
>> car.
> 
> The few car ads that aren't silly involve blatant snob appeal. (And many 
> of the snob-appeal ads are silly too.) Given enough development, a 
> machine can probably translate rational sentences, but few ads are 
> rational. One car company calls its product the ultimate (i.e. last) 
> driving machine. Context doesn't clarify whether "last" means "last 
> year" or "the end of the line" -- there will never be another.
> 
>   ...
> 
> Jerry

Nah.
In context of advertising "revolutionary" just means "revolting".
[Sorry Rune that's a pun that I doubt is translatable]
[[Note to native American English speakers - above an "editorial 
comment" - n'est pas ;)
Love to see a mechanical translator deal with above *LOL*

Rune Allnor wrote:
> 
> On 9 Mai, 16:10, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> > Rune Allnor wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all.
> >
> > > I just saw a commercial on one of the international cable TV
> > > channels.
> > > The subject of the commercial was a car, the voice-over had been
> > > translated, obviously by some translator-bot, to Norweigan and was
> > > read by somebody who obviously have Norwegian as her native
> > > language.
> >
> > > The English starting text was 'a revolutionary car', as in 'a car
> > > that
> > > introduces new and exciting technology.' The Norwegian text was 'en
> > > revolusion&#4294967295;r bil'. As in 'a car that wants to overthrow the present
> > > government and install its own.'
> >
> > No it doesn't mean "new exciting technology" in English. What it means
> > is this car overthrows the previous regime and installs a new one. That
> > is, it means this car is a trend setter. After this car all other cars
> > will be different. But it isn't at all clear what that actually means.
> > Does it mean they have developed a way to manufacture cars much cheaper
> > than before? Does it mean that they brought tail fins back? Or does it
> > mean this car has a new propulsion system that will make all other
> > propulsion systems obsolete? Or is the advertisement just blowing hot
> > air? In other words, they could have specified that the price, or body
> > styling, or engine design was revolutionary, but they didn't. That
> > probably means that nothing at all is really revolutionary about this
> > car.
> 
> I don't remember the details of the ad, other than it was one
> of those high-end Audi Sport Coupes.

Sounds like you got everything they wanted you to get from the
commercial.

> 
> > > To mirror the English semantics, one would have to say 'en
> > > revolusjonerende bil.'
> >
> > > I don't know what pisses me off the most; the obvious mistranslation
> > > that only a dictionary look-up translator-bot (human or computerized)
> > > can do, or that whoever read the voice-over did not object to an
> > > obviously meaningless statement.
> >
> > Wasn't the statement obviously meaningless in the original English
> > version???
> 
> I don't know. Was it?

	In the US there are laws prohibiting misrepresentations in advertising.
A car manufacture could suffer heavy fines if its ad copy contained
statements that were not true. However I think any car manufacturer can
call their cars  "revolutionary" or "ground breaking" with impunity.
That is probably because the statement like that is considered to be
without sufficient meaning to be able to determine if it is false. 

-jim


> 
> Rune