The catarrhine who invented a perpetual motion machine, by dreaming at night and devouring its own dreams through the day.

  • 5 Posts
  • 1.43K Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 12th, 2024

help-circle


  • I spend most of my day reading, as a translator. But it’s almost always stuff that I wouldn’t read, if not being paid to.

    If counting only books that I read for fun, I guess it’s ~2 books/month? Typically fantasy light novels. I also read a fair bit of manga (~5 chapters/day).

    Beyond those LNs I think that the last book I’ve read was in September; Um Copo de Cólera (lit. “a glass of rage”), from Raduan Nassar. Short but good first person story.

    I’m almost 40. I’m… tired. I don’t read stuff to feel myself cultured; I read stuff when I need to (because of my job) or when I feel in the mood to do so.








  • Ah, ambrosia…

    I ate a lot of that. But it didn’t make me immortal, it made me fat. (I’m joking of course - the dish above is named after the Greek myth OP talks about.)

    Serious now: I think that the myth refers to both honey and mead, without making a distinction between both. I’m saying this because:

    • the myth is considerably old, to the point that it has cognates in Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. It’s tempting to say that it’s an old Indo-European myth, inherited by both sides (Greeks and Indo-Iranians).
    • the Proto-Indo-European word *médʰu can refer to both honey and mead (note how it’s the ancestor of both English “mead” and Latin “mel” honey). It makes sense if its speakers - i.e. the people who had this myth initially - didn’t bother too much distinguishing both things.
    • the item in question is sometimes described as food, sometimes as liquid, and it’s rather fragrant.

    EDIT: about nectar. Both ἀμβροσῐ́ᾱ→ambrosia and νέκτᾰρ→nectar ultimately mean the same thing: “not dying”, “immortal” (check the links for etymological info). As such I think that both names initially referred to the same thing, and only evolved into two different mythological food items later on.







  • When it comes to how people feel about AI translation, there is a definite distinction between utility and craft. Few object to using AI in the same way as a dictionary, to discern meaning. But translators, of course, do much more than that. As Dawson puts it: “These writers are artists in their own right.”

    That’s basically my experience.

    LLMs are useful for translation in three situations:

    • declension/conjugation table - faster than checking a dictionary
    • listing potential translations for a word or expression
    • a second row of spell/grammar-proofing, just to catch issues that you didn’t

    Past that, LLM-based translations are a sea of slop: they screw up with the tone and style, add stuff not present in the original, repeat sentences, remove critical bits, pick unsuitable synonyms, so goes on. All the bloody time.

    And if you’re handling dialogue, they will fuck it up even in shorter excerpts, by making all characters sound the same.