Talk:Parallel text

Merge and split

• Parallel text#Bitext and Bitext word alignment should be at one page, called Bitext
  • Word alignment is a wide scientific field in computational linguistics, at the moment, and there are whole conference workshops devoted on that field. Keep in mind that word alignment can be applicable in parallel texts other than bitexts (including many pairs of languages at the same time) as shown for example in the OPUS task ( http://urd.let.rug.nl/tiedeman/OPUS/ ) . Therefore, if I would suggest a change, that would be keeping the term word alignment, as a separate article, removing it from the tight context of bitext. --Radiobuzzer (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Parallel text (excluding Bitext) and Polyglot (book) should be at a second page, called Parallel text.

The current three article division of material is messy and illogical. jnestorius^(talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The word Polyglot is specifically used for Bibles containing multiple side-by-side ancient translations. There is enough material in the present article to justify an article specifically on this subject. And if it were merged, this detailed current discussion of the various Polyglot editions would swamp the (somewhat superficial) current discussion of the general idea of parallel texts. I therefore see no benefit in a merge. Jheald (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Your statement does not match the current introduction to the Polyglot article. If you have sources for your statement, I'd be grateful if you could fix the article accordingly. jnestorius^(talk) 01:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I do think that that is the overwhelming use of the word with regard to books; it may not be absolute. Collins Concise English Dictionary (1999) says "4. a book, esp. a Bible, containing several versions of the same text written in various languages". However, I do think the present article on Polyglot Bibles is well scoped, and best left substantially as is. If necessary, it could be renamed Polyglot Bible. Jheald (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. There are already separate links on Polyglot for both "book" and "bible". Of course that is currently wrong since one redirects to the other, but redirecting Polyglot (book) to parallel text would fix that. One final niggle: would Polyglot (Bible) or Polyglot Bible be a better title; i.e. is the compound more common or the single-word name? jnestorius^(talk) 21:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• The current organization is confusing to me, who sought only assistance in translating some public-domain works as polyglots. If the articles are for the public, people will either want help in their own translations (CAT) or have a machine give them a clue (MT). This would seem a major division, akin to Bilingual dictionary Afterward, the tools in 'unplug' at Sourceforge (not mentioned) help one create parallel, scholarly texts of various kinds. 'Polyglot Bible' is popular enough to deserve its own link; however, 'Polyglot (book)' or 'Polyglot' may deserve a different one. These scholarly texts can be done totally by hand, and allow one to check the original source for accuracy. This has little to do with computers, which might be mentioned as tools. Links at the bottom could take one to computer articles, with discussions of 'translation memories', 'taging', chunking', &c. I simply wanted a spell check that translated words, but I'm awash in linguistics and artificial intelligence! (This commentary is just to assist with organization.) Geologist (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sites on Corpus

Some sites on Corpus.

http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/phil/english/chairs/linguist/independent/kursmaterialien/language_computers/whatis.htm 
http://www.cambridge.org/elt/corpus/what_is_a_corpus.htm 
http://www.tlumaczenia-angielski.info/linguistics/corpus.htm
http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES/corpustyp/node20.html

Verycuriousboy (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Parallel text. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707091815/https://www.inuktitutcomputing.ca:80/NunavutHansard/en/ to http://www.inuktitutcomputing.ca/NunavutHansard/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060913013656/https://www.cs.unt.edu/~rada/wpt/ to http://www.cs.unt.edu/~rada/wpt/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060913025814/https://www.cs.unt.edu/~rada/wpt05/ to http://www.cs.unt.edu/~rada/wpt05/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004235757/https://nl.ijs.si:80/telri/Vanilla/ to http://nl.ijs.si/telri/Vanilla/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)