Different translators, very different results.

Question

If you paste this very simple English sentence into the translator on this site you will get three wildly different results:

"He gave it to us."

1. Microsoft: "Le dio a nosotros"

2. Google: "Se lo dio a nosotros"

3. SDL: "Él nos lo dio"

The third translation strikes me as correct. Is it, or are none of them correct? Why would the second translation contain a reflexive pronoun? Is that a mistake? And is not nosotros the direct object in the first two translations? Is that correct usage?

Does anybody have any further comments regarding the usefulness and limitations of online translation services?

Answer 1

Be careful how you use them !

They are tricky! ;) - GuitarWarrior, Sep 5, 2011

Answer 2

Jejeje, oh translators. How funny they can be!

He gave it to us

Though I'm still learning, I'm fairly confident one would say this like Nos lo dio. That's basically what the third one has, just without the subject pronoun.

Why would the second translation contain a reflexive pronoun?

Google: "Se lo dio a nosotros"

Careful there. In this case, "se" is not a reflexive pronoun. When you have the indirect object pronoun and the direct object pronoun in a sentence, and they both start with the letter "l" as in "lemon", the indirect object turns to "se".

---

And is not nosotros the direct object in the first two translations?

In the English phrase, "He gave it to us", the DO is "it" and the IO is "us". It's the same in Spanish.

Microsoft: "Le dio a nosotros"

Google: "Se lo dio a nosotros"

Microsoft's translator is all over the place here. "Le" is an indirect object pronoun. There is nothing "le" in "he gave it to use". "A nosotros" is the IO, so having it alone without the "nos" is not correct.

Google's getting warmer, but it's still not correct. "Se" isn't needed in here. "Lo" is the right choice, though, which is good. Again with the "a nosotros", it's the IO so the sentence would need "nos".

---

Bottom line: Translators are a good tool. Good -- not great, not bad, not reliable, just good. If you want to get the main idea of something, that's the tool for you. However, if you wanted to correct a fairly complex sentence you wrote, don't bother. Sure, the translator can get "hola" and sentences in the present tense with no IO's or DO's right. However, if you ever want a reliable correction on a paragraph, you should most definitely post it on the forum.

Oh yes, you are correct about changing le to se. My mistake there. Thanks - trip2themoon, Sep 5, 2011

You are also correct about the DO & IO. I continually get the two terms mixed up. Thanks again. - trip2themoon, Sep 5, 2011

Fue un placer! :) - SonrisaDelSol, Sep 5, 2011

Answer 3

I have to side with Sonrisa on this one

I thought that the indirect object must always be expressed using an indirect object pronoun, so the use of nosotros here would be incorrect. Right? - trip2themoon, Sep 5, 2011

Yes... we have to put "nos" in the "microsoft" translation. Silly me :) - GuitarWarrior, Sep 5, 2011

Answer 4

In my opinion computer translations will never be "good enough" to rely on.

It's probably best to be reserved when predicting what technology will not be able to achieve in time. This is especially true with the advent of true artificial intelligence. - trip2themoon, Sep 5, 2011

It will still be "artificial" though. - ian-hill, Sep 5, 2011