Sadly these are not my shots

[limr30 3]

So you're saying that low light, low resolution, hand shake, and angle couldn't possibly cause the noise, out of focus areas, and lighting?

Sorry, I'm going to need more proof.

And in fact, these kinds of errors are so common that it's not even necessary to fake them. They've been documented for years.

Language Log: The Etiology and Elaboration of a Flagrant Mistranslation

They were so widespread, in fact, that in 2002, there were already reports that the Chinese government was trying to clean them all up before the 2008 Beijing Olympics:
Going crackers over Chinglish - smh.com.au

The "Time Sex Thing" sign picture has been circulating since at least 2007: Language Log: It's a time sex thing, baby

And some more explained from 2006: Language Log: Engrish explained

 

[Life]

Well I have kind of "tuned" my eye for that kind of thing, so it may come easier to me. the "F*ck" word is "mistranslated" so often that it really isn't..

 

[limr30 3]

Well I have kind of "tuned" my eye for that kind of thing, so it may come easier to me. the "F*ck" word is "mistranslated" so often that it really isn't..

Actually it IS being mistranslated that often.

 

[Life]

So you're saying that low light, low resolution, hand shake, and angle couldn't possibly cause the noise, out of focus areas, and lighting?

Sorry, I'm going to need more proof.

And in fact, these kinds of errors are so common that it's not even necessary to fake them. They've been documented for years.

Language Log: The Etiology and Elaboration of a Flagrant Mistranslation

They were so widespread, in fact, that in 2002, there were already reports that the Chinese government was trying to clean them all up before the 2008 Beijing Olympics:
Going crackers over Chinglish - smh.com.au

The "Time Sex Thing" sign picture has been circulating since at least 2007: Language Log: It's a time sex thing, baby

And some more explained from 2006: Language Log: Engrish explained

Did I say the time sex thing was a fake? nope I didn't. I said most of them, maybe 95% was a little high, but still a large of the mare fake. Also, a phone camera will not take a picture like that. That was faked to LOOK like a phone camera. and hell, maybe it even was originally. BUT, a shacking phone in low light causes mostly EQUAL blur throughout the image. That is not the case here. And Noise will be worse in the darker areas. Believe what you want, these images are for ****s and giggles and for gullible perverts who enjoy them.

 

[limr30 3]

So you're saying that low light, low resolution, hand shake, and angle couldn't possibly cause the noise, out of focus areas, and lighting?

Sorry, I'm going to need more proof.

And in fact, these kinds of errors are so common that it's not even necessary to fake them. They've been documented for years.

Language Log: The Etiology and Elaboration of a Flagrant Mistranslation

They were so widespread, in fact, that in 2002, there were already reports that the Chinese government was trying to clean them all up before the 2008 Beijing Olympics:
Going crackers over Chinglish - smh.com.au

The "Time Sex Thing" sign picture has been circulating since at least 2007: Language Log: It's a time sex thing, baby

And some more explained from 2006: Language Log: Engrish explained

Did I say the time sex thing was a fake? nope I didn't. I said most of them, maybe 95% was a little high, but still a large of the mare fake. Also, a phone camera will not take a picture like that. That was faked to LOOK like a phone camera. and hell, maybe it even was originally. BUT, a shacking phone in low light causes mostly EQUAL blur throughout the image. That is not the case here. And Noise will be worse in the darker areas.

Who said they were phone pictures? Some of these pictures have circulated for a very long time, before cell phones had decent cameras (or any at all) and when digital point and shoots weren't very impressive. Have you never heard of engrish.com? Engrish.com It's been around since 1996.

Believe what you want, these images are for ****s and giggles and for gullible perverts who enjoy them.

Did you bother to read the links I provided? They give quite detailed explanations of WHY the word f**k is mistranslated so often. Believe what you want, but I doubt that you have this one all figured out and in the bag.

 

[sashbar]

Why these is always one who is hell-bent to spoil the party?

 

[pgriz]

I know two non-english languages and when doing informal translation have to be careful to convey the sense/meaning, and not the literal equivalent. Sometimes even the sense is altered by the context, and if one doesn't know the context in which a certain phrase is used, then it is quite possible to convey the the wrong meaning. The people who can do simultaneous translation have my complete respect and even amazement at the feat of mental processing they do, especially if the language structure is different.

 

[limr30 3]

I know two non-english languages and when doing informal translation have to be careful to convey the sense/meaning, and not the literal equivalent. Sometimes even the sense is altered by the context, and if one doesn't know the context in which a certain phrase is used, then it is quite possible to convey the the wrong meaning. The people who can do simultaneous translation have my complete respect and even amazement at the feat of mental processing they do to, especially if the language structure is different.

Agreed - it's very difficult to get not just the meaning, but the context and connotations correct. And that's for a human translator! Add to the mix the fact that many businesses overseas rely on machine translations, and it's no wonder that things get so convoluted.

Here's a paragraph from one of the links I posted:

In "Gan: whodunnit, and how, and why?" (5/31/2006), I explained one of the sources of this phenomenon: several Chinese characters pronounced GAN1 or GAN4 -- and meaning such widely disparate things as "dry," "calendrical sign," "to do," and much else beside -- all got collapsed into one simplified character: 干. This has led to enormous confusion, especially when people who know next to no English rely on machine translation software to convert Chinese into English. The chaos caused by this combination of circumstances is vastly exacerbated by the fact that this little, three-stroke symbol also has a vulgar meaning when pronounced in the fourth tone, GAN4, namely "****," which is probably an extension of the regular sense of "do." Because GAN4 ("do") and GAN1 ("dry") are now both written with that little, three-stroke character, the damage is compounded by the enormous range of intended senses of GAN1/4 ("dry," "do," "act," "work," "undertake," "shield," "have to do with; be concerned with," "edge of a body of water," "be rude, impolite, blunt," "embarrass or annoy," "give the cold-shoulder to," "empty, hollow," measure word for a group of people, "trunk, stem, main part," "cadre," "competent, capable, able, talented," "go bad," "be a disaster," etc.), all of which are capable of coming out of the translation software as "****."

If you notice in those pictures in the OP's link, the signs that were mistranslated and included the word f**k had that same character in the Chinese text.

 

[480sparky40 39]

Why these is always one who is hell-bent to spoil the party?

One?

 

[Vince.1551]

Hahaha this is hilarious

 

[Life]

I know two non-english languages and when doing informal translation have to be careful to convey the sense/meaning, and not the literal equivalent. Sometimes even the sense is altered by the context, and if one doesn't know the context in which a certain phrase is used, then it is quite possible to convey the the wrong meaning. The people who can do simultaneous translation have my complete respect and even amazement at the feat of mental processing they do to, especially if the language structure is different.

Agreed - it's very difficult to get not just the meaning, but the context and connotations correct. And that's for a human translator! Add to the mix the fact that many businesses overseas rely on machine translations, and it's no wonder that things get so convoluted.

Here's a paragraph from one of the links I posted:

In "Gan: whodunnit, and how, and why?" (5/31/2006), I explained one of the sources of this phenomenon: several Chinese characters pronounced GAN1 or GAN4 -- and meaning such widely disparate things as "dry," "calendrical sign," "to do," and much else beside -- all got collapsed into one simplified character: 干. This has led to enormous confusion, especially when people who know next to no English rely on machine translation software to convert Chinese into English. The chaos caused by this combination of circumstances is vastly exacerbated by the fact that this little, three-stroke symbol also has a vulgar meaning when pronounced in the fourth tone, GAN4, namely "****," which is probably an extension of the regular sense of "do." Because GAN4 ("do") and GAN1 ("dry") are now both written with that little, three-stroke character, the damage is compounded by the enormous range of intended senses of GAN1/4 ("dry," "do," "act," "work," "undertake," "shield," "have to do with; be concerned with," "edge of a body of water," "be rude, impolite, blunt," "embarrass or annoy," "give the cold-shoulder to," "empty, hollow," measure word for a group of people, "trunk, stem, main part," "cadre," "competent, capable, able, talented," "go bad," "be a disaster," etc.), all of which are capable of coming out of the translation software as "****."

.

You can post what you want, but don't post something you got no damn idea about. My mother has been a professional translator for a long time, and still is. So I can tell you as a fact, that this" Add to the mix the fact that many businesses overseas rely on machine translations, and it's no wonder that things get so convoluted." Is 100% nonsense.

 

[limr30 3]

I'm a linguist and have been teaching language for 20 years. If I remember correctly, that's longer than you've been alive. If you honestly believe that people aren't relying heavily on machine translation, then you are incredibly naive.

 

[Life]

I'm a linguist and have been teaching language for 20 years. If I remember correctly, that's longer than you've been alive. If you honestly believe that people aren't relying heavily on machine translation, then you are incredibly naive.

People, NOT COMPANIES OR BUSINESSES. ...

 

[limr30 3]

I'm a linguist and have been teaching language for 20 years. If I remember correctly, that's longer than you've been alive. If you honestly believe that people aren't relying heavily on machine translation, then you are incredibly naive.

People, NOT COMPANIES OR BUSINESSES. ...

Prove it.

Please. Enough with the macho act. You got called on some bs and now you're pouting. You're young, you're naive, and if you looked past your own nose more a second before you shoot your mouth off, you'd be better off.

And with that, I'm done with this pup.

Sorry, sashbar. Loved the link.

 

[tirediron]

I'm a linguist and have been teaching language for 20 years. If I remember correctly, that's longer than you've been alive. If you honestly believe that people aren't relying heavily on machine translation, then you are incredibly naive.

People, NOT COMPANIES OR BUSINESSES. ...

I'm pretty sure this will need no translation: You're free to express your opinion, however please do it politely or not at all. One more outburst like that and you'll be able to give your typing fingers a rest!