Link: I, Translator | NY Times via @Wycliffe_USA
The limitations of machine (or Google) translation seem to eliminate it for anything beyond the most basic, concrete level of communication.
As the author of the article states, even real live translators have difficulty with literary prose and that is often even after a lifetime of learning both languages.
Language is more than merely a lexicon and a grammar. It is far more than symbols and rules. It, again as the author points out, embodies purpose or perhaps better: the intent of the heart.
Why not leverage machine (or Google) translation for the purpose of Bible Translation?
First, lacking a comprehensive lexicon and a complete grammar makes such machine translation ineffective.
Second, communicating the heart of any author of any literary work in a new language requires passion, receptivity and humility on the part of a translator…how much more so when the message is that of the heart of God?
Thirdly, what of the response of the target language speakers? Even if machine translation was 100% accurate could we say with any sincerity that our best efforts were to put God’s words in a box and let it spit them out as it might, without the need for the commitment and relationship and discipleship that characterize the lives of the translators working in those target languages?
And that raises the question of whether machine translation of Scripture would not only be ineffective but potentially inappropriate at best.
