Okay, this is just a wacky post. Adam Savage (of Mythbusters fame) posted a link on Twitter to this "Bad Translator" website. And it is a bad translator indeed.
It basically takes your English text and can go through either 10, 25, or all 54 different languages listed in Google Translate - translating to that language and back to English, so you can see your text morph, lanugage by language, into the unrecognizable result at the end.
It's like playing a game of Telephone at the United Nations.
So I've set the translations to the MAX, and here is a sampling of hilarity for you to enjoy this April Fool's Day.
(Yes, I initially started this post on April Fool's Day and finally got around to posting it.)
Movie/Music Quotes:
Original text:
Obi-Wan Kenobi: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."
...54 translations later we get:
"Class on Tuesday a mistake."
Original text:
Jon Bon Jovi: "Shot through the heart, and you're to blame. You give love a bad name."
...54 translations later we get:
"My responsibility as heart disease. Is not known"
Famous Quotes:
Original text:
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
...54 translations later we get:
"Do not worry, I am afraid."
Original text:
Amendment 2 of the Constitution: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
...54 translations later we get:
"You can also find a group of military security and freedom."
Original text:
Jean-Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people."
...54 translations later we get:
"Top"
Original text:
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."
...54 translations later we get:
"Violence is good."
Proverbs:
Original Text:
"A stitch in time saves nine."
...54 translations later we get:
"Do."
Original Text:
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
...54 translations later we get:
"Start tour in 1000 in San Francisco."
(There were about 50 more of these, but not at maximum translations and the funniest ones came from a friend as we were exploring this site. I'll post some of those in the comments later.)
Hope you enjoy!
(If you want to follow Mythbuster Adam Savage, his Twitter account is @donttrythis)
Also, leave a comment with some of your own hilarious translation results!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Freedoms: Speech and Hatred
Face it, we're being enslaved. Slavery is not at all over - not by a longshot - because none of us are truly free. We cannot do the things we were guaranteed the right to do, challenged by oppressive overseers who try to put us back in our "place" every day.
And here in the city of Chicago, two of this era's greater-ranking oppressors are merging and will be sharing the city's overseeing. I'm speaking, of course, about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Now I don't really have as much of a beef with Jackson; he stays out of the newspapers more often than not and is more of a behind-the-scenes kind of guy (as far as I can tell). Or it could just be that he's totally not behind-the-scenes; he's just severely overshadowed by the pompous windbag of oppression known as Al Sharpton.
Use the "n-word" in public (or loudly in the privacy of your own home) and the odds are good that it will travel like a twinge on a spider's web, alerting the beast that it's time to feed and suck the life out of another morsel. Say it on any broadcast waves, and the swarm is akin to a scene in Braveheart. Even now, I can picture Al Sharpton with the half-blue face, shouting:
"They can have cops shoot us! They can lynch us in the streets! They can portray us poorly in the media! But they can NEVER SAY THE N-WORD!!!"
Well guess what, Sharpton? Yes, we can! We have the right to use any word we want, at any time we want, in any place we want!
Oh, I think except for "fire" in a crowded auditorium. I think that's one's actually illegal, because it can get people killed in the ensuing trampling - though saying the WORD isn't illegal, just the result of it is illegal. Or something. It's a slippery slope...
Back to the point: Sharpton and Jackson are both proponents of the "death" of 'the n-word'. They even had a ceremony for its burial and everything. Which was then promptly defiled. It just goes to prove my point: You cannot kill words, and you cannot forbid them to be spoken. If you tried to ban/kill the word "green" - let's say you're against the unholy union of pureblood blues and yellows and you consider it an offense to the color wheel at large - wouldn't you also have to ban the word "verde" ("green" in Spanish)? What about "midori" (Japanese) or "vert" (French) or "зеленый цвет" (Russian)? No matter what words you take away, you can't change the fact that it IS a color and it's the IDEA of that color that creates the words, not the other way around. Removing the "n-word" isn't going to remove the hatred or feelings that lead people to USE that word; you've got the whole thing backwards! Even if you removed the right to say all known forms of the word "green" from every single language, people would have to find new ways to say it or express it. The color remains, and it wouldn't be long before "blellow" (blue-yellow) came into play. Kill it, and you'd get "yellue" (yellow-blue). Kill that, and people might start just calling it a word you couldn't get rid of...
Like "Kermit". Could you really kill off that word, just because it NOW represents some word or idea that you don't like? That's what we're faced with today.
Newer "n-words" are being formed thanks to the destruction and burial of the old one. Now, instead of the "true n-word", some people on the street have switched to "ninja". What are you going to do about that, oppressors Jackson and Sharpton? You can't kill a word that has thousands of years of history completely unrelated to the negative idea you're foolishly trying to hunt down and kill without bothering to try the root of the problem.
And the root of the problem is the hatred. Without the hatred, there'd be no reason to create or use "n-words" of any variety. Words are an expression of feelings and ideas - you can't just treat every instance of a word as just one emotion or feeling or idea being tied to it. One person from the Deep South might use the "n-word" as a way to express outright hatred and loathing for a race of people. One person of that race might use the "n-word" as a way to express a "brotherhood" or connection with other people of that race. Nobody should be allowed to mandate that one usage is associated with all utterances of that word, and no matter if you use it to express brotherhood, comedy, or even the factual (like reading a transcript) - the mandate says it's nothing but hatred and loathing.
That's a load of "BS-word".
No matter what the foolish reason for trying to cut the word down to size, you can't curb the ideas and emotions behind it. Nobody can tell you how to feel or how to think. You have the right to enjoy something or dislike something. That's right, you have the liberty of hatred. You can hold a grudge, form an enemy, even pray for genocide. You can have any idea you choose to be nestled in your head - and even the right to say them out loud and express them. Following through with them, however, is another case entirely. You have the freedom to wish for genocide; you don't have the freedom to put it into action. But that's a rant for another day.
I think I've spoken my peace. Which I am fully entitled to do. I have the freedom of speech. And I have the freedom of hatred towards those who do not respect the freedoms of speech and hatred.
So Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton - keep your wits about you, because I won't be stifled by your oppressive beliefs that words can be "bad". Words are always good, because it's always better to use them than to resort to violence instead. Any good mother can tell you that. The ideas are what you're supposed to be against, not the words expressing them. And unfortunately for you, the ideas in someone else's head are not yours to govern. The best you can hope for is you speak your mind, just as you should let others speak theirs, and hope that in time, your words can sway their minds away from the hatred and loathing that lead them to use their words in ways you don't like.
Until then, we'll just have to agree to disagree - and speak our minds as such.
Which we both have the freedom to do. Read more!
And here in the city of Chicago, two of this era's greater-ranking oppressors are merging and will be sharing the city's overseeing. I'm speaking, of course, about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Now I don't really have as much of a beef with Jackson; he stays out of the newspapers more often than not and is more of a behind-the-scenes kind of guy (as far as I can tell). Or it could just be that he's totally not behind-the-scenes; he's just severely overshadowed by the pompous windbag of oppression known as Al Sharpton.
Use the "n-word" in public (or loudly in the privacy of your own home) and the odds are good that it will travel like a twinge on a spider's web, alerting the beast that it's time to feed and suck the life out of another morsel. Say it on any broadcast waves, and the swarm is akin to a scene in Braveheart. Even now, I can picture Al Sharpton with the half-blue face, shouting:
"They can have cops shoot us! They can lynch us in the streets! They can portray us poorly in the media! But they can NEVER SAY THE N-WORD!!!"
Well guess what, Sharpton? Yes, we can! We have the right to use any word we want, at any time we want, in any place we want!
Oh, I think except for "fire" in a crowded auditorium. I think that's one's actually illegal, because it can get people killed in the ensuing trampling - though saying the WORD isn't illegal, just the result of it is illegal. Or something. It's a slippery slope...
Back to the point: Sharpton and Jackson are both proponents of the "death" of 'the n-word'. They even had a ceremony for its burial and everything. Which was then promptly defiled. It just goes to prove my point: You cannot kill words, and you cannot forbid them to be spoken. If you tried to ban/kill the word "green" - let's say you're against the unholy union of pureblood blues and yellows and you consider it an offense to the color wheel at large - wouldn't you also have to ban the word "verde" ("green" in Spanish)? What about "midori" (Japanese) or "vert" (French) or "зеленый цвет" (Russian)? No matter what words you take away, you can't change the fact that it IS a color and it's the IDEA of that color that creates the words, not the other way around. Removing the "n-word" isn't going to remove the hatred or feelings that lead people to USE that word; you've got the whole thing backwards! Even if you removed the right to say all known forms of the word "green" from every single language, people would have to find new ways to say it or express it. The color remains, and it wouldn't be long before "blellow" (blue-yellow) came into play. Kill it, and you'd get "yellue" (yellow-blue). Kill that, and people might start just calling it a word you couldn't get rid of...
Like "Kermit". Could you really kill off that word, just because it NOW represents some word or idea that you don't like? That's what we're faced with today.
Newer "n-words" are being formed thanks to the destruction and burial of the old one. Now, instead of the "true n-word", some people on the street have switched to "ninja". What are you going to do about that, oppressors Jackson and Sharpton? You can't kill a word that has thousands of years of history completely unrelated to the negative idea you're foolishly trying to hunt down and kill without bothering to try the root of the problem.
And the root of the problem is the hatred. Without the hatred, there'd be no reason to create or use "n-words" of any variety. Words are an expression of feelings and ideas - you can't just treat every instance of a word as just one emotion or feeling or idea being tied to it. One person from the Deep South might use the "n-word" as a way to express outright hatred and loathing for a race of people. One person of that race might use the "n-word" as a way to express a "brotherhood" or connection with other people of that race. Nobody should be allowed to mandate that one usage is associated with all utterances of that word, and no matter if you use it to express brotherhood, comedy, or even the factual (like reading a transcript) - the mandate says it's nothing but hatred and loathing.
That's a load of "BS-word".
No matter what the foolish reason for trying to cut the word down to size, you can't curb the ideas and emotions behind it. Nobody can tell you how to feel or how to think. You have the right to enjoy something or dislike something. That's right, you have the liberty of hatred. You can hold a grudge, form an enemy, even pray for genocide. You can have any idea you choose to be nestled in your head - and even the right to say them out loud and express them. Following through with them, however, is another case entirely. You have the freedom to wish for genocide; you don't have the freedom to put it into action. But that's a rant for another day.
I think I've spoken my peace. Which I am fully entitled to do. I have the freedom of speech. And I have the freedom of hatred towards those who do not respect the freedoms of speech and hatred.
So Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton - keep your wits about you, because I won't be stifled by your oppressive beliefs that words can be "bad". Words are always good, because it's always better to use them than to resort to violence instead. Any good mother can tell you that. The ideas are what you're supposed to be against, not the words expressing them. And unfortunately for you, the ideas in someone else's head are not yours to govern. The best you can hope for is you speak your mind, just as you should let others speak theirs, and hope that in time, your words can sway their minds away from the hatred and loathing that lead them to use their words in ways you don't like.
Until then, we'll just have to agree to disagree - and speak our minds as such.
Which we both have the freedom to do. Read more!
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The 'R' Word?
Apparently there's a new word being banned from our language - though not a word you might expect and not a ban that should be taken lightly (if accepted at all). The word we're forbidden to use is "rape", but you can still hear it said on the air, in the papers, and especially in public conversation between people of any gender, race or ethnicity. You just can't use it in court. You especially can't use it in court during a trial over a rape conviction.
Oh, did I just say the R-word? I meant "sexual assault". Oh, I can't say that either? How about "nonconsentual sex"? Good, that one's still allowed. For now, at least - since the Nebraska judge who's on a word-banning rampage decided to let "sex" itself slide. So far, the list that the judge has allowed to be banned in sexual assault cases is: "rape", "sexual assault", "victim", "assailant", and "sexual assault kit". So I guess you can't even call them sexual assault cases!
How the hell can you be charged with a crime if the courts won't even let you use the name of the crime itself? Nebraska law offers judges broad discretion to ban evidence or language that present the danger of "unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury." The most common word that has been allowed to be banned from courts is "victim" - because they claim it implies that a crime was committed. The word implies that the person was the subject of an action that is categorized as unwanted or unfavorable. A negative action is not necessarily an illegal action. A defendant could be the victim of a joke or the victim of a mugging - the word 'victim' doesn't mean a crime was committed. Being in COURT means a crime was possibly committed.
Can we not use the word "defendant" because THAT implies that a crime was committed and someone is defending either the action or circumstance or some other defense? It's a TRIAL - we KNOW that a crime was committed if someone's in CRIMINAL COURT. Banning the use of words that imply what we already know to be true is utterly ridiculous.
But it gets worse - because they wanted to also ban the words "sex" and "sexual intercourse", because those words supposedly imply a LACK of crime. The lawyers claim that using "sex" in a sentence inherently implies that it's consentual, which will bias the jury, so they should ban it from this case as well.
This is shaping up to be a horrible "rape"... I mean "sexual"... I mean "nonconsentual"... Um, a horrible "some-personal-and-private-act-that-may-or-may-not-have-been-legal" case.
What was the reason again for banning these words? Something about not wanting to mislead the jury? Oh, well I'm sure that all of the discussion about banning these words and reminding the jury that none of these words are being used so they don't prejudge anyone - that'll certainly keep them led in the right direction. What's that?
Oh - the jury is completely in the dark about this!
What could be more misleading to a jury than hiding the fact that certain words are not going to be used in this trial - words that describe what the trial is about and that they need to decide whether or not it happened and whether or not the defendant did it.
Did WHAT? You can't say it! How can they make an informed decision on the facts of the case to decide if the defendant raped the plaintiff or not if nobody's allowed to use the word "rape"???
None of this is right.
And even though the word "victim" is forbidden in that court of law, it is the court of law itself that has become the victim in this insane debacle.
Sorry, rape victims. To the Nebraska courts, you're all just "unwilling sperm recipients" now. Read more!
Oh, did I just say the R-word? I meant "sexual assault". Oh, I can't say that either? How about "nonconsentual sex"? Good, that one's still allowed. For now, at least - since the Nebraska judge who's on a word-banning rampage decided to let "sex" itself slide. So far, the list that the judge has allowed to be banned in sexual assault cases is: "rape", "sexual assault", "victim", "assailant", and "sexual assault kit". So I guess you can't even call them sexual assault cases!
How the hell can you be charged with a crime if the courts won't even let you use the name of the crime itself? Nebraska law offers judges broad discretion to ban evidence or language that present the danger of "unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury." The most common word that has been allowed to be banned from courts is "victim" - because they claim it implies that a crime was committed. The word implies that the person was the subject of an action that is categorized as unwanted or unfavorable. A negative action is not necessarily an illegal action. A defendant could be the victim of a joke or the victim of a mugging - the word 'victim' doesn't mean a crime was committed. Being in COURT means a crime was possibly committed.
Can we not use the word "defendant" because THAT implies that a crime was committed and someone is defending either the action or circumstance or some other defense? It's a TRIAL - we KNOW that a crime was committed if someone's in CRIMINAL COURT. Banning the use of words that imply what we already know to be true is utterly ridiculous.
But it gets worse - because they wanted to also ban the words "sex" and "sexual intercourse", because those words supposedly imply a LACK of crime. The lawyers claim that using "sex" in a sentence inherently implies that it's consentual, which will bias the jury, so they should ban it from this case as well.
This is shaping up to be a horrible "rape"... I mean "sexual"... I mean "nonconsentual"... Um, a horrible "some-personal-and-private-act-that-may-or-may-not-have-been-legal" case.
What was the reason again for banning these words? Something about not wanting to mislead the jury? Oh, well I'm sure that all of the discussion about banning these words and reminding the jury that none of these words are being used so they don't prejudge anyone - that'll certainly keep them led in the right direction. What's that?
Oh - the jury is completely in the dark about this!
What could be more misleading to a jury than hiding the fact that certain words are not going to be used in this trial - words that describe what the trial is about and that they need to decide whether or not it happened and whether or not the defendant did it.
Did WHAT? You can't say it! How can they make an informed decision on the facts of the case to decide if the defendant raped the plaintiff or not if nobody's allowed to use the word "rape"???
None of this is right.
And even though the word "victim" is forbidden in that court of law, it is the court of law itself that has become the victim in this insane debacle.
Sorry, rape victims. To the Nebraska courts, you're all just "unwilling sperm recipients" now. Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
