[Sca-cooks] <grins wickedly> I've an idea!!

[Decker, Terry D.]

Part of the problem is translation programs are written to translate
"standardised" modern language.  That is they follow specific rules of
spelling and grammar.  Anything written prior to the 19th Century, other
than the possible exception of Latin, tends to have irregular grammar and
phonetic spellings peculiar to the language, region and person.  The
programs aren't smart enough to handle these kinds of variations.

There are routines which will handle less than 100% congruence, but they are
not good enough to handle the multiple complexities of translating archaic
documents.

Bear

> Actually, I've used them, and if you understand their limitations and
> compensate, they're okay. Lieutenant Hoshi, they're not. If you're
> dealing with anything even remotely archaic, a word which is 99%
> congruent with a modern term, but not 100% congruent, will tend to
> throw them for a loop. For cooks the problem is compounded by the
> fact that we use a fair amount of non-standard terminology that is
> fairly low on the list of the programmers' and linguists' priorities.
>
> Adamantius
>
>