Talk:Distributed Language Translation

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Stub‑class

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Constructed languages: Esperanto Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Constructed languages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Esperanto task force.

What happened to it? Did it work? --Taejo 20:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my question, too! I heard of it, but then silence. Said: Rursus (☻) 07:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't work because it wasn't finished. They didn't include the Esperanto community to grow the amount of bilingual corpus. They gave way to Statistical Machine Translation Models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studyroom (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous concept, really?

This article:

«From a modern view, the DLT concept was erroneous in itself, as it couldn't distinguish the different meanings of the same word in different contexts.»

The same in eowiki:

«[…] the worth of this research project, which according to independent experts was very promising, remains in the form of published articles and a whole series of books, detailed and comprehensive enough to sustain future further evolution […]» (translation and emphasis mine).

Furthermore, the paragraph in enwiki is erroneous, since in case of ambiguity detected during the input phase, the program would ask questions in order to get the correct meaning in the intermediate-language text.

Tonymec (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]