Will knowing more than two languages become a status symbol in the near future?
Everyone's learning english, and technology will soon be able to translate texts on the spot for most practical purposes. So eventually, those who spend time taking up French or Arabic will only do so out of artistic interest, knowing that the literature, the poetry, the films and the music can only be properly enjoyed in the original language.
>in the future
Look behind you.
>>8285070
I'd say it's quite the other way around. More and more children grow up learning a second foreign language when they are in fourth or fifth grade. A third one a bit later. At least apparently in central Europe.
>>8285070
It already is.
>>8285070
>technology will soon be able to translate texts on the spot for most practical purposes
citation needed
It already is.
>>8285070
>technology will soon be able to translate texts on the spot for most practical purposes
Maybe for facebook posts, but any serious text will require skilled human translation, at least until real AI is developed.
>>8285375
nice try, but likely it will be the other way around and facebook posts will need the most human intervention in translating
>>8285159
Considering the extraordinary leaps in CAT (that's computer-assisted translation, for those who don't know) in the past 10 years, the role of the technical, judicial and medical translators will be more that of proofreaders, editors. They won't be doing the heavy brunt of the translation work anymore. Heck, compare the old Babelfish technology, if that still exists, with what Google Translate can do. If Trados and MemoQ ever get busy with automated translation, it could revolutionise the field.
>>8285419
I agree. Technical texts (which is most of what I translate on a day-to-day basis) are repetitive, filled with terminology and unambiguous writing (well, ideally). It's the stuff computers and CAT are suited for. Puns, illogical and ungrammatical sentences, euphonics, that's where humans will continue to hold the upper hand, at least for the next 20-30 years.
>>8285455
yeah I think you're much too optimistic. not about our technological capabilities, but about our understanding of human language.
>>8285497
I might be. But I have been working as a translator for about 15 years now. When I started working, there were no electronic dictionaries, and precious little online stuff. The internet in 2001 was a very different beast from what it is now. I had to flip through tons of stuff, with the certainty that I had once translated a sentence like that, but that I'd be damned if I remembered how I'd translated it before. I'm now working with AutoSuggest programs that routinely fill in 50% of things I'm supposed to translate, or give me alternatives I hadn't even thought of using. The technology won't get there immediately, and it won't be good at the start, but I still think that most who are now translators like me will be out of a job come 2040.
>>8285455
>Heck, compare the old Babelfish technology, if that still exists, with what Google Translate can do.
Both are pretty shit.
>>8285918
>But I have been working as a translator for about 15 years now. When I started working, there were no electronic dictionaries
I don't believe you
>>8285930
Hm, I didn't know that existed so early! But at the same time: English-French is a huge market, it makes sense it started there first. I should have clarified: for the languages I was and am working with (German to Dutch mostly, some English every now and then). I did look around for electronic aid for those language pairs back in the day, but there simply wasn't any.
>>8285070
>soon
HAhaha
>>8285070
Everyone is learning languages like crazy.
With three languages you are a pleb barely qualified to collect trash in my country (this sort of includes me unfortunately because nobody cares about Latin).
Maybe one day people will learn less languages, but before that it's going to go in the other direction for quite a while to come.
