Fact Hunt!
there is no translation for lesbian from English to Icelandic
Google has apologised after its language-scraping service offered up offensive alternatives including "poof" and "faggot" as replacements for the word gay. Campaign group All Out spotted the blunder and complained about the slurs to Google. The ad giant then replaced the words with more neutral terms. The worst insults to …
I for one don't think we should censor a dictionary type resource just because of sensibilities.
Whilst I'm inclined to agree, in part, I don't see why translations to certain words cannot be tagged, as offensive, vulgar, slang, etc. (as they are in dictionaries) and why Google cannot apply the equivalent of 'safe search' to them.
If I were to use it to translate a document into another language (caveat emptor, I know), it would be a reasonable expectation that it wouldn't use offensive terms, unless I specifically allowed it to. In the more likely situation where I am translating a document from another language into English in order to understand it, I typically wouldn't want the resulting text to be peppered with bigotry.
Conversely, if the source document contains text which is racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise distasteful, and I wished to know what nasty things the author had been saying, but translated into my own language, it would seem reasonable to have an option to preserve such language in the translation. However distasteful such terms are, they still convey meaning.
@Loyal Commenter
You are requesting a fairly major increase in functionality. Certainly what you are suggesting would be useful, but it's beyond the scope of what Google currently does.
In the mean time, single interest, narrow-focus pressure groups are attempting not to increase the functionality, but to remove the use, in any context, of words they don't like. Which is not, really, constructive.
You are requesting a fairly major increase in functionality. Certainly what you are suggesting would be useful, but it's beyond the scope of what Google currently does.
Given that organisationally, Google are perfectly set up for exactly this sort of data analytics, you'd probably be surprised at how little work this would be. I reckon it would probably turn out to be a couple of weeks work for one programmer, to define the rules and techniques for extracting such information, and then a learning period for the software as it goes to work categorising the data. Given that Google's Oompah-Loompahs are purportedly given a day a week to work on their own projects, it wouldn't surprise me if someone was already working on it.
>In the mean time, single interest, narrow-focus pressure groups are attempting not to increase the functionality, but to remove the use, in any context, of words they don't like.
That's a tall order. Words become offensive when they reflect the offensive intent of the users. It is the intent, not the letters or sound which is offensive. Until you can erase hateful people, you won't ever erase words full of hate. It works both ways though... "I hate your hateful words, therefore I hate you and seek to marginalise/erase you." appears to be the common moral-high-ground-surrendering response.
There do appear to be activists who seek out all opposition to their cause and try to destroy it by any and all means. They tend to be quite obnoxious, sad people. They remind me of present-day Nazi-hunters. Yes, the Nazis were bad people, but there is little to be gained from prosecuting 90-year-olds. If doing so would undo the evil they did, prevent future abominations or really even demonstrate justice in action I'd be all for it. At this point however, it just makes the hunters look like people who nurture spite and hate with an inability to forgive.
As has been said, tag the terms appropriately as colloquial, slang and.or vulgar. Job done.
@Loyal Commenter
Be careful with Google Translate, I tried it on a safety manual. GT doesn't seem to like unabbreviated sentences. E.g. "Don't" translates correctly, but "Do not" translates to "do", at least in German.
My safety manual, which read "do not open the case, no user servicable parts inside" translated into German read the equivalent of "open the case, no parts inside" :-D
More worrying was that "do not open the case, high voltage inside" translated to "open the case, high voltage inside," I think Google must have noticed that I had stopped using Android and was using a Windows Phone...
@big_D
I absolutely agree; if you trust the translation from Google, you are asking for what you get. As I said, caveat emptor
Fun examples can be had by taking a sentence of your choice, using Google Translate to translate this to a second language, then taking this translation, translating it to a third language, and finally back to the original language.
The above sentence translated to Greek, then Japanese, then back to English, reads:
"Fun example, Google is, to translate it in a second language, taking this translation, translated into third language, using eventually return to the original language, by taking the penalty of your choice you can be had."
You can be had indeed...
Depends, if you use an offensive word in English, then it should probably translate it into an equivalently offensive word in the other language, and if you use a politically correct word, it should.
However, Google is nowhere near as good as a skilled human translator, and it works by examining already translated texts, so maybe I'm asking too much.
Is it even possible nowadays to "not" offend someone, or some group, or some subset of and subset of a tiny proportion of infinitesimally minor range of people.
When we have reduced the language to 16 words and the human brain to nothing more than a slot machine will we then have achieved satisfaction for the Nanny State and it's members.
After reading about Cumberbatchs' apology the other day I decided to have a look around for the list of words that I'm not supposed to use.
Guess, what..there doesn't appear to be one.
This is actually quite clever, because people who are constantly watching what they say (just in case it might offend) are effectively already mind-controlled.
Control the language and you control the scope of thought processes.
Control the language and you control the scope of thought processes.
More fool them...
More of a hinderanc to anything intelligent or productive rather than any other behaviours. How much 'scope of thought processes' is actually needed to encapsulate the concept of say, having sex with a member of the underage population, or hitting somebody over the head repeatedly with a length of wood or throwing old women off the top of large buildings? In fact, in lieu of anybody interesting to talk to or the ability to formulate more meaningful thoughts I'd wager these activities would gain in popularity.
This post has been deleted by its author
of course someone will still be offended by "melon farmer"
This is why I sometimes have a tablet or laptop nearby, while watching movies at home.
Urban Dictionary. Seriously, I would have been completely lost watching "Deuce Bigalow" otherwise.
They should include subtitles for these.
You don't actually get what the problem is.
When I write a sentence, I want to use words that are exactly as nice and friendly, or exactly as offensive and insulting, as I want them to be. So I don't mind offensive words in a dictionary, if they are part of the used language.
A dictionary giving English translations, presumably used by someone who doesn't speak English well, can translate say French insults to English insults, but here it translates inoffensive words into very offensive words. Someone said these words should be marked as "vulgar" or "offensive", but there were some that fall into the category "may cause loss of teeth" or "will get your into deep trouble when used".
Also "ham doctor" as coined back in 2009.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/07/22
From the blurb:
A year ago, we saw a quiz thing that asked you to determine which of four odd phrases were euphemisms for sexual acts. By the time we had discovered this question, every item on the list had developed a carnal reputation. That is to say, *every item*. We are fast approaching a point where ordering a sandwich at a deli will land you in prison. While I’m intrigued by the dystopian undertones of this scenario, I don’t necessarily want to live under its strictures, not least of which because I tend to frequent delis.
Also, I’m pretty sure that “Dystopian Undertones” is guttermouth for the male testes. Make a note.
"But gay also meant prostitute. There, fixed your misplaced nostalgia for you."
Different nostalgia in different places methinks. I can remember describing myself as "a batchelor gay" when picking up ladies of the female gender for rather more than platonic love. It was a common phrase probably emanating from a popular song written in 1917. As I don't know the words I haven't a clue if that was euphemistic but if so it was lost of the lads of the 60s. Well those I knew. It was a bit embarrassing when a few years later it took on the other meaning. Had to rewrite my chat up script.
Not that either was very effective :-(
Since it is based on the French word "Gai", voila some etymology, in French of course
I will sum up some of the points in the text below.
Historically it appears to stem back to the 11th century.
Gay:
That which is funny humour, that which expresses gaiety; that which inspires gaiety, a calm and agreeable moment. Bubbly.
There are a few others less connected meaning which are not worth mentioning unless you need to know that it could express Light Green, Yellowish when speaking about soup....
Étymol. et Hist. 1. 2emoitié du xies. « qui est d'humeur riante (en parlant d'une personne); qui exprime la gaieté (visage, etc.) » (Levy Trésor, p. 121); ca 1155 « id. » (Wace, Brut, éd. I. Arnold, 1564); 2. ca 1225 tens ... gais « qui inspire la gaieté, temps agréable et doux » (Durmart le Gallois, éd. J. Gildea, 924); 3. ca 1300 vert gay « vert clair, jaunâtre (en parlant d'un bouillon) » (Taillevent, Viandier, éd. P. Aebischer, p. 94). Peut-être empr. de l'a. occitan gai « pétulant, gai » (dep. Guillaume IX ds FEW t. 16, p. 9 a; v. aussi Levy (E.) Prov.), lui-même issu du got. *gaheis « impétueux » (cf. a. h. all. gāhi « id. », all. jäh « brusque »), provenance qui serait due à l'infl. des troubadours (FEW, loc. cit.), ou plus vraisemblablement mot issu directement de l'a. h. all. gāhi d'où la forme attendue jai (xiiies., Pastourelles, éd. J. Cl. Rivières, CIX, 8). La prédominance de la forme avec g- s'explique en particulier par les interférences constantes entre gai et gaillard (v. DEAF, col. 35, s.v. gai).
I believe the use of the word to insinuate homosexuality (amongst other meanings, which have now fallen out of use) pre-dates that by a fair while. However, the use of the word to mean homosexual, as its primary meaning, and as a noun, rather than an adjective dates from the mid 20th century. It's first use in that sense on screen, for instance, was by Cary Grant in the film, "Bringing Up Baby" in 1938.
I've not seen the film in question myself, but on the website from which I cribbed this information:
Bringing Up Baby in 1938 was the first film to use the word gay to mean homosexual. Cary Grant, in one scene, ended up having to wear a lady’s feathery robe. When another character asks about why he is wearing that, he responds an ad-libbed line “Because I just went gay”. At the time, mainstream audiences didn’t get the reference so the line was thought popularly to have meant something to the effect of “I just decided to be carefree.”
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/02/how-gay-came-to-mean-homosexual/
I guess that, like me, he didn't get the memo about "coloured" now being a grossly offensive term outside the US, and made a slip using that word while within it. Apparently it isn't the meaning of the language you use that matters any more, just how compliant you are with the Universal PC English Dictionary.
Somebody should also tell the NAACP about this, lest they inadvertently offend themselves.