On 08/07/2010 02:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Word-processing the Google output to arrive at a readable, written text
> creates more work than it saves.
This is where our experience differs. I'm working faster with the Google
Translator Toolkit than without.
> If Google want to build up their t
--- On Sun, 8/8/10, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> This is where our experience differs. I'm working faster
> with the Google
> Translator Toolkit than without.
Whether "faster" or not is a function of a number of variables:
- How well do you know the languages and subject matter concerned? Do you rel
> You won't find many professional translators using GTTK for their work.
[citation needed]
-m.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- On Sun, 8/8/10, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > You won't find many professional
> translators using GTTK for their work.
>
> [citation needed]
Professional translators and translation agencies tend to use systems like
Trados or Wordfast, building their own translation memories relevant to the
I read that thread and noticed a lot of confusion. One translator
admitted she never even tried it, but still had lots of negative stuff
to say; more than one person said they found it useful (see
Esperantisto's response), and other people seemed to not realize there
was a difference between Google
> I read that thread and noticed a lot of confusion. One translator
> admitted she never even tried it, but still had lots of negative stuff
> to say; more than one person said they found it useful (see
> Esperantisto's response), and other people seemed to not realize there
> was a difference betw
combinations seem to do much better.
A.
--- On Mon, 9/8/10, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> From: Andreas Kolbe
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Parallel text alignment (was: Push translation)
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Monday, 9 August, 2010, 2:37
> > I re
