Socratic Paradox
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}
.everyonelovesstackoverflow{position:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;}
4
According to the Wikipedia page of the Socratic paradox 'I know that I know nothing', Latin version of the same is — 'Scio me nescire' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing).
However, Google Translate says that English translation of 'Scio me nescire' is 'I know I know'.
Why is their a difference between the info of the 2 sources and which one is right?
idiom translation-check latin-to-english-translation
edited May 29 at 9:39
Joonas Ilmavirta♦
53.4k13 gold badges75 silver badges318 bronze badges
asked May 28 at 6:35
CCCCCCCC
1265 bronze badges
add a comment
|
4
According to the Wikipedia page of the Socratic paradox 'I know that I know nothing', Latin version of the same is — 'Scio me nescire' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing).
However, Google Translate says that English translation of 'Scio me nescire' is 'I know I know'.
Why is their a difference between the info of the 2 sources and which one is right?
idiom translation-check latin-to-english-translation
edited May 29 at 9:39
Joonas Ilmavirta♦
53.4k13 gold badges75 silver badges318 bronze badges
asked May 28 at 6:35
CCCCCCCC
1265 bronze badges
2
Computer translation programs are well known for being wrong. It's not that they just make mistakes (like humans are known for) -- it's that they calculate their translations (much like a math problem), but they lack the ability to suspect that their translations could be wrong. (At the very least, if they're programmed to have the ability to suspect wrong translations, they don't (yet) communicate it to the human user.) So always take computer translations with a grain of salt! (Meaning that you are allowed to be skeptical of them.)
– J-L
May 28 at 17:10
add a comment
|
4
4
4
According to the Wikipedia page of the Socratic paradox 'I know that I know nothing', Latin version of the same is — 'Scio me nescire' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing).
However, Google Translate says that English translation of 'Scio me nescire' is 'I know I know'.
Why is their a difference between the info of the 2 sources and which one is right?
idiom translation-check latin-to-english-translation
edited May 29 at 9:39
Joonas Ilmavirta♦
53.4k13 gold badges75 silver badges318 bronze badges
asked May 28 at 6:35
CCCCCCCC
1265 bronze badges
According to the Wikipedia page of the Socratic paradox 'I know that I know nothing', Latin version of the same is — 'Scio me nescire' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing).
However, Google Translate says that English translation of 'Scio me nescire' is 'I know I know'.
Why is their a difference between the info of the 2 sources and which one is right?
idiom translation-check latin-to-english-translation
idiom translation-check latin-to-english-translation
edited May 29 at 9:39
Joonas Ilmavirta♦
53.4k13 gold badges75 silver badges318 bronze badges
asked May 28 at 6:35
CCCCCCCC
1265 bronze badges
edited May 29 at 9:39
Joonas Ilmavirta♦
53.4k13 gold badges75 silver badges318 bronze badges
asked May 28 at 6:35
CCCCCCCC
1265 bronze badges
edited May 29 at 9:39
Joonas Ilmavirta♦
53.4k13 gold badges75 silver badges318 bronze badges
edited May 29 at 9:39
Joonas Ilmavirta♦
53.4k13 gold badges75 silver badges318 bronze badges
edited May 29 at 9:39
Joonas Ilmavirta♦
53.4k13 gold badges75 silver badges318 bronze badges
53.4k13 gold badges75 silver badges318 bronze badges
asked May 28 at 6:35
CCCCCCCC
1265 bronze badges
asked May 28 at 6:35
CCCCCCCC
1265 bronze badges
asked May 28 at 6:35
CCCCCCCC
1265 bronze badges
1265 bronze badges
2
Computer translation programs are well known for being wrong. It's not that they just make mistakes (like humans are known for) -- it's that they calculate their translations (much like a math problem), but they lack the ability to suspect that their translations could be wrong. (At the very least, if they're programmed to have the ability to suspect wrong translations, they don't (yet) communicate it to the human user.) So always take computer translations with a grain of salt! (Meaning that you are allowed to be skeptical of them.)
– J-L
May 28 at 17:10
add a comment
|
2
Computer translation programs are well known for being wrong. It's not that they just make mistakes (like humans are known for) -- it's that they calculate their translations (much like a math problem), but they lack the ability to suspect that their translations could be wrong. (At the very least, if they're programmed to have the ability to suspect wrong translations, they don't (yet) communicate it to the human user.) So always take computer translations with a grain of salt! (Meaning that you are allowed to be skeptical of them.)
– J-L
May 28 at 17:10
2
2
Computer translation programs are well known for being wrong. It's not that they just make mistakes (like humans are known for) -- it's that they calculate their translations (much like a math problem), but they lack the ability to suspect that their translations could be wrong. (At the very least, if they're programmed to have the ability to suspect wrong translations, they don't (yet) communicate it to the human user.) So always take computer translations with a grain of salt! (Meaning that you are allowed to be skeptical of them.)
– J-L
May 28 at 17:10
Computer translation programs are well known for being wrong. It's not that they just make mistakes (like humans are known for) -- it's that they calculate their translations (much like a math problem), but they lack the ability to suspect that their translations could be wrong. (At the very least, if they're programmed to have the ability to suspect wrong translations, they don't (yet) communicate it to the human user.) So always take computer translations with a grain of salt! (Meaning that you are allowed to be skeptical of them.)
– J-L
May 28 at 17:10
add a comment
|
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
11
Because Google Translate is wrong. It does not, (or not only) use the dictionary meaning of words, but learns phrases in context. In many cases this can help create a natural translation but (especially for short phrases out of context) it can lead to nonsense.
Nescire ("ne scire") means "to not know".
Scio me nescire is literally "I know myself to not know" - this is the normal way in Latin of expressing "I know that ...".
So a faithful translation into normal English is "I know that I do not know".
answered May 28 at 10:36
Colin FineColin Fine
4912 silver badges5 bronze badges
1
What is more, Google Translate doesn't use any model of grammar at all, or at least not until recently; I read they were surprised at how quickly and easily a small company created a superior translation website (DeepL), which does use a model or grammar, and so Google finally tried to integrate some grammatical model as well, although I don't know how well and to what extent they have done or are doing that. P.S. DeepL doesn't have Latin, but it is mostly superior to Google in the languages it does have.
– Cerberus♦
May 28 at 15:04
1
I feel like this almost isn't complete without mentioning the connection between scio and nescire; that scio comes from scire ("to know") and nescire ("to not know") is literally just ne scire .
– Raphael Schmitz
May 28 at 15:34
1
Added, @RaphaelSchmitz
– Colin Fine
May 28 at 16:13
@Cerberus It's a big controversy in machine translation, whether to use rule based (i.e. human extracted syntax rules) or data-based (statistically learned patterns). Rather, currently it is not controversial at all because recent statistical based methods (DL, LSTM, BERT) are so much more successful. There's the classic quip by Jelinek, a speech recognition researcher: "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up"
– Mitch
May 28 at 17:37
@Mitch: Noöne suggests only one method should be used, but, from what I read, Google's disregard of grammatical models has proved inferior to that of DeepL, which no doubt combines models with statistical methods.
– Cerberus♦
May 29 at 0:21
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "644"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10862%2fsocratic-paradox%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
11
Because Google Translate is wrong. It does not, (or not only) use the dictionary meaning of words, but learns phrases in context. In many cases this can help create a natural translation but (especially for short phrases out of context) it can lead to nonsense.
Nescire ("ne scire") means "to not know".
Scio me nescire is literally "I know myself to not know" - this is the normal way in Latin of expressing "I know that ...".
So a faithful translation into normal English is "I know that I do not know".
answered May 28 at 10:36
Colin FineColin Fine
4912 silver badges5 bronze badges
1
What is more, Google Translate doesn't use any model of grammar at all, or at least not until recently; I read they were surprised at how quickly and easily a small company created a superior translation website (DeepL), which does use a model or grammar, and so Google finally tried to integrate some grammatical model as well, although I don't know how well and to what extent they have done or are doing that. P.S. DeepL doesn't have Latin, but it is mostly superior to Google in the languages it does have.
– Cerberus♦
May 28 at 15:04
1
I feel like this almost isn't complete without mentioning the connection between scio and nescire; that scio comes from scire ("to know") and nescire ("to not know") is literally just ne scire .
– Raphael Schmitz
May 28 at 15:34
1
Added, @RaphaelSchmitz
– Colin Fine
May 28 at 16:13
@Cerberus It's a big controversy in machine translation, whether to use rule based (i.e. human extracted syntax rules) or data-based (statistically learned patterns). Rather, currently it is not controversial at all because recent statistical based methods (DL, LSTM, BERT) are so much more successful. There's the classic quip by Jelinek, a speech recognition researcher: "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up"
– Mitch
May 28 at 17:37
@Mitch: Noöne suggests only one method should be used, but, from what I read, Google's disregard of grammatical models has proved inferior to that of DeepL, which no doubt combines models with statistical methods.
– Cerberus♦
May 29 at 0:21
add a comment
|
11
Because Google Translate is wrong. It does not, (or not only) use the dictionary meaning of words, but learns phrases in context. In many cases this can help create a natural translation but (especially for short phrases out of context) it can lead to nonsense.
Nescire ("ne scire") means "to not know".
Scio me nescire is literally "I know myself to not know" - this is the normal way in Latin of expressing "I know that ...".
So a faithful translation into normal English is "I know that I do not know".
answered May 28 at 10:36
Colin FineColin Fine
4912 silver badges5 bronze badges
1
What is more, Google Translate doesn't use any model of grammar at all, or at least not until recently; I read they were surprised at how quickly and easily a small company created a superior translation website (DeepL), which does use a model or grammar, and so Google finally tried to integrate some grammatical model as well, although I don't know how well and to what extent they have done or are doing that. P.S. DeepL doesn't have Latin, but it is mostly superior to Google in the languages it does have.
– Cerberus♦
May 28 at 15:04
1
I feel like this almost isn't complete without mentioning the connection between scio and nescire; that scio comes from scire ("to know") and nescire ("to not know") is literally just ne scire .
– Raphael Schmitz
May 28 at 15:34
1
Added, @RaphaelSchmitz
– Colin Fine
May 28 at 16:13
@Cerberus It's a big controversy in machine translation, whether to use rule based (i.e. human extracted syntax rules) or data-based (statistically learned patterns). Rather, currently it is not controversial at all because recent statistical based methods (DL, LSTM, BERT) are so much more successful. There's the classic quip by Jelinek, a speech recognition researcher: "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up"
– Mitch
May 28 at 17:37
@Mitch: Noöne suggests only one method should be used, but, from what I read, Google's disregard of grammatical models has proved inferior to that of DeepL, which no doubt combines models with statistical methods.
– Cerberus♦
May 29 at 0:21
add a comment
|
11
11
11
Because Google Translate is wrong. It does not, (or not only) use the dictionary meaning of words, but learns phrases in context. In many cases this can help create a natural translation but (especially for short phrases out of context) it can lead to nonsense.
Nescire ("ne scire") means "to not know".
Scio me nescire is literally "I know myself to not know" - this is the normal way in Latin of expressing "I know that ...".
So a faithful translation into normal English is "I know that I do not know".
answered May 28 at 10:36
Colin FineColin Fine
4912 silver badges5 bronze badges
Because Google Translate is wrong. It does not, (or not only) use the dictionary meaning of words, but learns phrases in context. In many cases this can help create a natural translation but (especially for short phrases out of context) it can lead to nonsense.
Nescire ("ne scire") means "to not know".
Scio me nescire is literally "I know myself to not know" - this is the normal way in Latin of expressing "I know that ...".
So a faithful translation into normal English is "I know that I do not know".
answered May 28 at 10:36
Colin FineColin Fine
4912 silver badges5 bronze badges
edited May 28 at 16:13
answered May 28 at 10:36
Colin FineColin Fine
4912 silver badges5 bronze badges
answered May 28 at 10:36
Colin FineColin Fine
4912 silver badges5 bronze badges
answered May 28 at 10:36
Colin FineColin Fine
4912 silver badges5 bronze badges
4912 silver badges5 bronze badges
1
What is more, Google Translate doesn't use any model of grammar at all, or at least not until recently; I read they were surprised at how quickly and easily a small company created a superior translation website (DeepL), which does use a model or grammar, and so Google finally tried to integrate some grammatical model as well, although I don't know how well and to what extent they have done or are doing that. P.S. DeepL doesn't have Latin, but it is mostly superior to Google in the languages it does have.
– Cerberus♦
May 28 at 15:04
1
I feel like this almost isn't complete without mentioning the connection between scio and nescire; that scio comes from scire ("to know") and nescire ("to not know") is literally just ne scire .
– Raphael Schmitz
May 28 at 15:34
1
Added, @RaphaelSchmitz
– Colin Fine
May 28 at 16:13
@Cerberus It's a big controversy in machine translation, whether to use rule based (i.e. human extracted syntax rules) or data-based (statistically learned patterns). Rather, currently it is not controversial at all because recent statistical based methods (DL, LSTM, BERT) are so much more successful. There's the classic quip by Jelinek, a speech recognition researcher: "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up"
– Mitch
May 28 at 17:37
@Mitch: Noöne suggests only one method should be used, but, from what I read, Google's disregard of grammatical models has proved inferior to that of DeepL, which no doubt combines models with statistical methods.
– Cerberus♦
May 29 at 0:21
add a comment
|
1
What is more, Google Translate doesn't use any model of grammar at all, or at least not until recently; I read they were surprised at how quickly and easily a small company created a superior translation website (DeepL), which does use a model or grammar, and so Google finally tried to integrate some grammatical model as well, although I don't know how well and to what extent they have done or are doing that. P.S. DeepL doesn't have Latin, but it is mostly superior to Google in the languages it does have.
– Cerberus♦
May 28 at 15:04
1
I feel like this almost isn't complete without mentioning the connection between scio and nescire; that scio comes from scire ("to know") and nescire ("to not know") is literally just ne scire .
– Raphael Schmitz
May 28 at 15:34
1
Added, @RaphaelSchmitz
– Colin Fine
May 28 at 16:13
@Cerberus It's a big controversy in machine translation, whether to use rule based (i.e. human extracted syntax rules) or data-based (statistically learned patterns). Rather, currently it is not controversial at all because recent statistical based methods (DL, LSTM, BERT) are so much more successful. There's the classic quip by Jelinek, a speech recognition researcher: "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up"
– Mitch
May 28 at 17:37
@Mitch: Noöne suggests only one method should be used, but, from what I read, Google's disregard of grammatical models has proved inferior to that of DeepL, which no doubt combines models with statistical methods.
– Cerberus♦
May 29 at 0:21
1
1
What is more, Google Translate doesn't use any model of grammar at all, or at least not until recently; I read they were surprised at how quickly and easily a small company created a superior translation website (DeepL), which does use a model or grammar, and so Google finally tried to integrate some grammatical model as well, although I don't know how well and to what extent they have done or are doing that. P.S. DeepL doesn't have Latin, but it is mostly superior to Google in the languages it does have.
– Cerberus♦
May 28 at 15:04
What is more, Google Translate doesn't use any model of grammar at all, or at least not until recently; I read they were surprised at how quickly and easily a small company created a superior translation website (DeepL), which does use a model or grammar, and so Google finally tried to integrate some grammatical model as well, although I don't know how well and to what extent they have done or are doing that. P.S. DeepL doesn't have Latin, but it is mostly superior to Google in the languages it does have.
– Cerberus♦
May 28 at 15:04
1
1
I feel like this almost isn't complete without mentioning the connection between scio and nescire; that scio comes from scire ("to know") and nescire ("to not know") is literally just ne scire .
– Raphael Schmitz
May 28 at 15:34
I feel like this almost isn't complete without mentioning the connection between scio and nescire; that scio comes from scire ("to know") and nescire ("to not know") is literally just ne scire .
– Raphael Schmitz
May 28 at 15:34
1
1
Added, @RaphaelSchmitz
– Colin Fine
May 28 at 16:13
Added, @RaphaelSchmitz
– Colin Fine
May 28 at 16:13
@Cerberus It's a big controversy in machine translation, whether to use rule based (i.e. human extracted syntax rules) or data-based (statistically learned patterns). Rather, currently it is not controversial at all because recent statistical based methods (DL, LSTM, BERT) are so much more successful. There's the classic quip by Jelinek, a speech recognition researcher: "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up"
– Mitch
May 28 at 17:37
@Cerberus It's a big controversy in machine translation, whether to use rule based (i.e. human extracted syntax rules) or data-based (statistically learned patterns). Rather, currently it is not controversial at all because recent statistical based methods (DL, LSTM, BERT) are so much more successful. There's the classic quip by Jelinek, a speech recognition researcher: "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up"
– Mitch
May 28 at 17:37
@Mitch: Noöne suggests only one method should be used, but, from what I read, Google's disregard of grammatical models has proved inferior to that of DeepL, which no doubt combines models with statistical methods.
– Cerberus♦
May 29 at 0:21
@Mitch: Noöne suggests only one method should be used, but, from what I read, Google's disregard of grammatical models has proved inferior to that of DeepL, which no doubt combines models with statistical methods.
– Cerberus♦
May 29 at 0:21
add a comment
|
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Latin Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10862%2fsocratic-paradox%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Computer translation programs are well known for being wrong. It's not that they just make mistakes (like humans are known for) -- it's that they calculate their translations (much like a math problem), but they lack the ability to suspect that their translations could be wrong. (At the very least, if they're programmed to have the ability to suspect wrong translations, they don't (yet) communicate it to the human user.) So always take computer translations with a grain of salt! (Meaning that you are allowed to be skeptical of them.)
– J-L
May 28 at 17:10