Note: I should mention for those not on the development list that the original poster I was responding to in my first post on this subject has clarified that he was not referring to fully automated translation software, but to some kind of translator's aid, with a human element checking the accuracy of the translations.
Miguel Zuniga wrote:
Even though the translation uses "Simple English" (as in http://simple.wikipedia.org/), Pragmatics play a very important role. The same word (although simple) can have more than one "plain" meanings, depending on the context: "save" has two different meanings when in a game or in a word processor.
Yes, that's one of the main issues. That's why I wanted to be sure everyone realized the work involved and the necessity to restrict the source documentation to a "one word, one meaning" scheme.
The whole point is that you wouldn't be allowed to use words like "save" in this double manner. You would find another word for one of the meanings. And the issue of fixed expressions like "Good night" is also relatively easily solved by having these expressions constitute their own entries in the mapping dictionary.
Please, give a second (and a third) thought in this matter. It would be a shame to give a bad impression, even when it has very good intentions. Me think your consideration will play a better band (as another example).
Actually, several companies have had good success in fully automated translation of technical documents precisely because they chose a "one word, one meaning" scheme. It actually works pretty well for technical documentation, where you can use such a scheme.
On the other hand, I know of at least one example where a company had to scrap its entire system and restart from scratch, precisely because its technical writers and editors more or less rebelled against the restrictions.
That company now uses their second system to translate their documentation, and they sold the rights to their original system to someone else, who was able to make money from it.
So even though the first system was perfectly functional and worked for someone else, it didn't work for the original company, because they couldn't work within the restrictions.
Again, this is why I held off mentioning this topic for so long. It's a lot of work and a lot of restrictions for the documentation writers. When you're paying them, you can usually ask that kind of thing from them. When they're volunteers, that doesn't always work so well.