(February 9, 2019 at 8:38 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(February 9, 2019 at 6:34 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I guess so.

If "U cjelini, radije ne" was supposed to mean "In general, rather not." (as Google Translate "translates" it from Croatian to English), the correct way of saying that in Croatian is "Općenito, najradije ne bih.".

And what are you trying to say? That I was wrong to discuss those things on a Latin forum? Latin is the language of the European history. If you don't know Latin well, you simply can't study European history, since all until somewhere around 1850s, almost all the historical sources (both in Croatia, and in Serbia. and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Hungary, and I guess many other European countries) were written in Latin and very few of them have been translated to some living language.

I used the google translate latin option. I cant remember what I typed in.

By the way, what do you think, what is the best thing you can do if you want to write a text that's easy to understand using the machine translation?
I've researched that a little, I think that the best thing you can do is to make sentences that consist of short phrases separated by commas. Machine translation usually comprehensibly translates short phrases, but it fails to parse (find what's the subject, what's the object and what's the verb) long sentences.
For example, if you don't know Latin, try to translate the following sentence using Google Translate:

https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru...19#p202251 Wrote:Iam scripsi: cum ego homines rogo, homines quos ego nosco, de his rebus, illi homines tum mihi dicunt me stultum esse.

I bet those commas I've put help a lot, even though that sentence can naturally be paraphrased so that those commas and conjunctions aren't necessary.

In my experience, Google Translate usually produces ungrammatical gibberish both when translating longer texts from English to Latin and when translating long texts from Latin to English. It usually produces ungrammatical gibberish when translating from English to Croatian, but, oddly enough, the output it produces when translating from Croatian to English is often comprehensible.

Anyway, and this is a serious question: Is it possible, if not probable, that the president of Croatia, Franjo Tuđman, or some other Croatian politician, let the Massacre of Vukovar happen on purpose? That's a point that's often being discussed in the Croatian media, for example, here or here.
I really like how Mile Dedaković put it for BBC: "Ja vjerujem gospodinu predsjedniku Tuđmanu da je on to naoružanje poslao. Ali činjenica je da mi to naoružanje... nismo dobili!". That means: "I believe that the president Tuđman sent the weapons to us. But the fact remains that those weapons... weren't delivered to us!". It kinda summarizes the whole point. It's not that Croatia didn't have the weapons. It's not that the Serbian side was abundant in weapons either, the Vukovar Hospital Massacre was done by an illegal army assembled by Željko Ražnatović. So what happened to those weapons? Did the president Franjo Tuđman refuse to send those weapons? If so, why? Did those weapons somehow get intercepted by some Serbian illegal army, so that it somehow didn't go on record? Or was perhaps Mile Dedaković colluding with Ražnatović, and he somehow hid those weapons?
What do you think? As far as I know, there is no official explanation for what happened to the weapons the president supposedly sent.

Weapons shipments in the region remained insecure into the 2000’s. We spent most of our time searching and seizing.

(February 9, 2019 at 10:50 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: By the way, what do you think, what is the best thing you can do if you want to write a text that's easy to understand using the machine translation?
I've researched that a little, I think that the best thing you can do is to make sentences that consist of short phrases separated by commas. Machine translation usually comprehensibly translates short phrases, but it fails to parse (find what's the subject, what's the object and what's the verb) long sentences.
For example, if you don't know Latin, try to translate the following sentence using Google Translate:

https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru...19#p202251 Wrote:Iam scripsi: cum ego homines rogo, homines quos ego nosco, de his rebus, illi homines tum mihi dicunt me stultum esse.

I bet those commas I've put help a lot, even though that sentence can naturally be paraphrased so that those commas and conjunctions aren't necessary.

In my experience, Google Translate usually produces ungrammatical gibberish both when translating longer texts from English to Latin and when translating long texts from Latin to English. It usually produces ungrammatical gibberish when translating from English to Croatian, but, oddly enough, the output it produces when translating from Croatian to English is often comprehensible.

There's a story (probably apocryphal) from the early days of translation software during the Cold War.  American programmers were trying to get a better sense of common Russian idioms that might be intercepted.  Their early efforts weren't notably successful; The phrase 'Out of sight, out of mind' came back translated as 'Invisible insanity'.

Boru

(July 12, 2019 at 8:01 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Weapons shipments in the region remained insecure into the 2000’s. We spent most of our time searching and seizing.

So, you think it's likely that the weapons got intercepted? So, how come it didn't go on record? Isn't it more likely that the president Tuđman refused to send those weapons in the first place?

---

(July 12, 2019 at 9:06 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(February 9, 2019 at 10:50 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: By the way, what do you think, what is the best thing you can do if you want to write a text that's easy to understand using the machine translation?
I've researched that a little, I think that the best thing you can do is to make sentences that consist of short phrases separated by commas. Machine translation usually comprehensibly translates short phrases, but it fails to parse (find what's the subject, what's the object and what's the verb) long sentences.
For example, if you don't know Latin, try to translate the following sentence using Google Translate:
I bet those commas I've put help a lot, even though that sentence can naturally be paraphrased so that those commas and conjunctions aren't necessary.

In my experience, Google Translate usually produces ungrammatical gibberish both when translating longer texts from English to Latin and when translating long texts from Latin to English. It usually produces ungrammatical gibberish when translating from English to Croatian, but, oddly enough, the output it produces when translating from Croatian to English is often comprehensible.

There's a story (probably apocryphal) from the early days of translation software during the Cold War.  American programmers were trying to get a better sense of common Russian idioms that might be intercepted.  Their early efforts weren't notably successful; The phrase 'Out of sight, out of mind' came back translated as 'Invisible insanity'.

Boru

Yeah, I know a few such stories. One is that "Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." came back as "Wine is good, but meat is rotten.".

No idea, only mentioning that “intercepted weapons” were just about the most likely occurrence on any given day for years in the region,

And, what do guys here think, did Josip Broz Tito or Ante Pavelić kill more people? I think Broz killed slightly more, in spite of Pavelić being much more demonized today. It's kind of depressing to think I happen to be of the same nationality as the two tyrants who killed hundreds of thousands of their fellow Croatians in the last century, and as many people of other nationalities.
The good news is that, about a week ago, I wished a happy 130th birthday to Pavelić on Facebook (under my pseudonym "Ivor Reliv"), and I didn't get banned again. It seems that the FaceBook moderators got a bit more reasonable over the years.

Is there anybody else here who thinks Hezbollah might not be such bad guys as the western media makes them look? I mean, they fought on our side during the Battle of Sarajevo.

Also, what's your view of the current Croatian government? I think that Kolinda Grabar Kitarović is way more reasonable than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, yet alone Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ted Cruz or Jim Inhofe. I also think that Miroslav Škoro will be, if he gets elected (and I guess he will be), a good president. He wants to get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy. The mainstream media presents that as authoritarian, but I don't think it is. I think that will actually eliminate much of the corruption, as well as make it possible to cut the taxes. I also like his speeches against progressivism and about how the left-right-spectrum is a wrong way to think about politics. And the fact that he has done a PhD in economics also gives him credibility in my eyes.

Was the nazi puppet dictator in power for four years worse than the anti soviet commie dictator in power for decades.....

Or are you wondering which man likely killed more people himself? Do nazis count as people?

Anyway, hezbollah are pretty nasty. I don’t understand people’s obsession with resistance groups being “the good guys”.

Gae Bolga Wrote:Do nazis count as people?

Why wouldn't they? Nazis are simply brainwashed, right? Do the brainwashed North Koreans count as people?

Does anybody here want to debate anarchism in Latin?