Human and Automated Translation

     Nothing substitutes the flesh and blood translator and interpreter. The professional translator doesn’t use translation machines to perform his work for him. He/she can, however, use the available translation devices to understand a bit the languages he/she doesn’t know and increase his/her knowledge about other peoples and cultures as well, in cases he/she can’t count on foreign colleagues to help him/her. I believe technology serves to help man, never to substitute him. It’s always man’s intelligence that’s behind the machines.

      The “Phraselator” technology mentioned here, from the glorious “Star Trek”, is actually being used nowadays, especially in the military area. Those who are smart enough to use it when it’s strictly necessary, however, are also smart to know they’re carrying a kind of electronic phrase dictionary, not a versatile human translator and interpreter.

      A translator uses a bilingual dictionary (and even consults reliable translation sites) as a mere tool, the same way a writer uses his native language dictionary to elucidate doubts. But there’s a big difference between the human and the automated translation and their respective usages.

     Only the human translation transmits the precise sense of a text in a way that’s completely understandable to the reader. The automated translation, in its turn, has a fantastic comprehensiveness of languages and it’s a useful and valid tool to several kinds of professional in many situations. When there can’t be an interpreter available, the automated translation facilitates the communication between several peoples during trips around the world and the cultural interchange. (I myself, for instance, here on the blog, as I mention on the presentation, have included the Google translator because _ though I never use it professionally as a translator, since translations are too literal and usually don’t “fit” _ I think it’s a very useful tool for any language reader to understand at least the contents of a foreign text).

     Basically, it would be something more or less like this: “Just when the access to a “Personal Human Translator” is not possible for some reason, take your “Phraselator” with you.

     Translation is not a mechanic act. It’s not the transcription of word for word of a text literally. It’s a kind of craftsmanship, even an art. As an example, when we translate a word from English to Portuguese, such as “water”, we have one meaning, but if we add another word, such as in “water clock”, “water closet”, “water mill”, “waterfall”, “waterfront”,  the meaning changes, naturally, and the translator has to know that in order not to translate those words separately and getting wrong meanings. If you take a word in Portuguese such as “água” (water), and add other words such as in “água-viva” (jelly-fish), “água sanitária” (chlorine bleach), água-forte (etching) etc., you have other meanings. In phrases, and, especially in paragraphs and longer texts, the meaning one wants to give to words and to the general context becomes more complex, and so it would be impossible to merely replace words. That is, translation can’t be done word for word, literally. It’s a combination of ideas, a composition elaborated with the knowledge of the origin and target languages and of several cultural aspects, besides other factors.

    The same way an artisan creates a piece with all his/her care, the translator composes a translation by attaining the feat of being faithful to the author and, at the same time, being faithful to the reader.

My humble tribute to the brilliant “Star Trek” which I was be able to

 watch in Brazil (among countless people), when I was a kid, thanks

 to the talent and dedication of several professionals,

including the translators.