Skip to main content

Why we Don't use Google Translate

I often get asked, 'So, why don't you use Google translate? Or, worse, 'I suppose these days you just use Google translate (GT) to translate the Bible.'

Here are several good reasons not to use GT:
1. Most minority languages are not on GT. The one we worked on only became available fairly recently, after the Bible was already translated.
2. GT uses a statistical method, relying on having lots of texts available in the language, and lots of translations of those texts into other languages. It then compares the two and guesses the translation. For minority languages, those don't yet exist in books, let alone online.
3. If you do use it it requires heavy checking and editing of the translation afterwards, which takes time, so you haven't gained anything. This is because it guesses the translation. Google does not, as far as I know employ real translators. The only way of improving the quality of Google translations is for many many people to click 'improve translation' and give Google feedback that way. Since minority groups are small, and often lack internet access, this isn't likely to happen. Bible translations need to be accurate, clear and natural. GT will give you an inaccurate, unclear and unnatural translation.
4. Google can't spot idioms like to 'run a meeting' or euphemisms like 'to pass on'. Nor can it cope with metaphors. A book like Isaiah is about 90% metaphor and 10% not. So Google can't understand Isaiah let alone translate it (you might be thinking you don't understand Isaiah too, but I'm sure you get it better than Google does).
5. The hardest thing about translation is people and cultures. Google is not into relationship building or anthropology 
6. The next hardest thing is linguistics, which is not as predictable or mechanical as people think. Why would it be? Languages vary hugely. Few, even within language groups, are similar to each other. To under the linguistic problems in a text requires a Master's degree or higher. A BA would work for simpler texts. GT doesn't have one of those.
7. GT doesn't understand the differences between audiences. One translation won't usually work for different audiences, hence the plethora of translations of the Hebrew and Greek Bible into English. What we're trying to do is produce the first ever translation of the Bible into a given minority language. It can't choose which audience to translate for, let alone the purpose of that translation i.e. how it might be used. These days we don't start translating until we have got those kinds of answers nailed down, or rather community leaders have.

So, Google translate doesn't work for Bible translation. Guessing just won't cut the mustard.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Plea Regarding Footnotes in Bible Translation

Recently I was giving input to a team who had worked on Psalms. I noticed that in several places they had included footnotes referring to the New Testament use of those Psalms. One example was a footnote in Ps 34:20 'not one of [his bones] will be broken' that referred to John 19:32, 33, 36 where this prophecy is fulfilled. Now, obviously this is a useful link for readers, but it is better to put it in John's gospel referring back to Psalms. Why? Because the New Testament is (to some extent) a commentary on the Hebrew Bible, whereas the reverse is not true (the Hebrew Bible never refers to the New Testament). There are often two possible ways of reading a Psalm: In its original context, and  As interpreted by the New Testament writers. This is quite important, as the Hebrew Bible belongs to two faith communities, the Jews and the Christians. (Muslims too, to some extent, though they refer to the Torah and the Psalms only). If we translate the Bible in such a way that it onl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Integral Mission vs. Holistic Mission - What's the Difference?

 A lot of people are talking about integral mission these days, whereas the idea of holistic mission seems to have fallen by the wayside. What's the difference? Holistic mission is mission to the whole person, taking into account their physical as well as spiritual needs. Evangelism is combined with social action. Unfortunately, this term has been used for some years now, and much mission that was labelled 'holistic' was mainly social action. Integral mission has more focus on communities and their felt needs. What issues of poverty and (lack of) justice are there? How can a given community begin to address these issues? What input do they need from outsiders as they do so? How can they define kingdom goals that will bring them out of their physical and spiritual poverty? Lausanne defines it here . The fact is that the neediest communities are often ones that lack the Bible, and lack a clear orthography (alphabet corresponding to the phonemic system of the language, and tha...
Post a Comment
Read more