I wonder?

My Guru [a philosophy student/teacher friend],

So I have been reading from your library, and I must say some of this stuff is very heady, that is one could easily get lost in mere exploration as well as just trying to discern what some of these men(!) are trying to say.

Now, whether you are aware of it or not, I have been working on an interlinear translation project for over a year. Put this together with the above and I get:

What if we had an application that took sentences or paragraphs from one of the works of one of your esteemed men and translated from the language given, example English, and with the assistance of an expert or [group of] curated commentators gave paraphrases or glosses of the words presented?

This would be like an interlinear "translation" of English to explanatory/more accessible English plus where needed a "gloss" of particular word/phrase meanings.

Does an expert or group of curated commentators exist to help accomplish this task? Yes, with qualification. An LLM, large language model, that thing that AI/chatbots rely upon to answer questions and prompts, is hypothetically an expert with ready access to huge amounts of words from all kinds of sources that could answer like an expert, one that would need to be proofread to make sure there is no hallucination or other error/omission creeping in to the translated response . . . I know, an omission creeping in is a contradiction, but you get the idea.

Is there a group of curated commentators available in the AI world to provide the same or finer-grained responses suitable for elucidating, making more accessible the sometimes difficult to understand/decode male marvels of today and yesterday? I believe so, at least one that holds that as a capability. Perplexity is perhaps one tool.

Can one ask Perplexity to decode sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph a given source text using say, a well-curated dictionary or encyclopedia? I don't see why not. Here is an example with which we can try this experiment.

I term its matter\ but that which so determines * the manifold of appearance that it allows of being ordered 2 in certain re- lations, I term the form of appearance. That in which alone the sensations can be posited and ordered in a certain form, cannot itself be sensation; and therefore, while the matter of all appearance is given to us a posteriori only, its form must lie ready for the sensations a priori in the mind, and so must allow of being considered apart from all sensation.

Given the above quotation, write a line by line translation into simpler English using as necessary the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a reference. Format your response as an interlinear document where each source sentence is followed below it with the translation/gloss.

Here is the output from Perplexity.

[begin response]

"I term its matter"
→ I call this the **matter** of the appearance.

"but that which so determines * the manifold of appearance"
→ But that which structures the many elements of the appearance.

"that it allows of being ordered 2 in certain re- lations,"
→ In such a way that they can be arranged in specific relations to one another,

"I term the form of appearance."
→ I call this the **form** of the appearance.

"That in which alone the sensations can be posited and ordered in a certain form,"
→ That in which alone sensations can be placed and organized into a definite pattern,

"cannot itself be sensation;"
→ Cannot itself be a sensation,

"and therefore, while the matter of all appearance is given to us a posteriori only,"
→ And therefore, although the matter of every appearance is given to us only from experience (a posteriori),

"its form must lie ready for the sensations a priori in the mind,"
→ Its form must already be present in the mind before experience (a priori), ready to structure incoming sensations,

"and so must allow of being considered apart from all sensation."
→ And so this form can be thought about independently of any particular sensations.

[end response]

The sources for the above response are the following.

1.https://www.academia.edu/90445815/Kants_Ontology_of_Appearances_and_the_Synthetic_Apriori
2.http://depts.washington.edu/lsearlec/TEXTS/KANT/CR_PURE_R/2-AESTH.HTM
3.http://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Kant/CritiqueAesthetic.html
4.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/
5.https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason/Volume_1/Part_1
6.https://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi175/appearance.html
7.https://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Kant/CritiqueAesthetic.html
8.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/
9.https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason_(Meiklejohn)/Volume_1/Part_1
10.https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/kant-aesthetics/

Now, as my philosophic guru, how did the experiment work out? or just ignore this sidetrack adventure and discard. No obligation to respond.

​For my part, I will continue to play with this idea. Beats other diversions to avoid Alzheimer's.

​
Side note: Perplexity nailed the source which was not given in the question/prompt.

With respect,

an unrepentant student

---

Inter-linear Translator

PS AI did not write or improve or approve of this missive.

[Comment. The source text should have been prepared for machine processing. For example, how can it interpret '/' or '*'? In addition, the prompt says line by line and by sentence. Which should it be? Sentence level should be the choice, for the translation is to make sense of sense units, and in a difficult passage, that is where the reader usually trips up. Of course, s/he can use a dictionary to decode the smaller bits. If the philosopher is using a term in a special sense, the dictionary or word/phrase gloss is not always helpful. Here the better machine translator, not a person in this case, would pick up the fact that something is being used in a special, perhaps wholly unique, sense. Common philosophical discourse uses a priori and the like, and these need not be interpreted, although in the above they are with the common term for the genre in parentheses, which helps understanding.]

Whole French Language (reading and practice)

 

For an interesting example of interlinear reading for language acquisition, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svUZWwqZkC4. Presentation based on The whole French language by Robertson, T. (Théodore), 1803-1871.

 

 

 Interlinear and bilingual texts are great ways to learn/acquire languages since through language we know they make the input in the target language comprehensible. Thus, one wouldn't be wrong at all to call these books a great source of comprehensible input, a term coined by Stephen Krashen. The book at hand, Whole French Language, 650+ pages total, written by T. Robertson and authorship of which dates back to mid-19th century, consists of such interlinear and bilingual text enriched with multiple practical exercises, grammar lessons and a synopsis of the French language attached to the end of the book.

 

For more on reading to acquire L2 based on theory and some research, see Stephen Krashen via these links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Krashen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis 

Summary to date*

 

Bilingual books, why not?

 AI generated answer to the conventional bilingual book format.

Bilingual book formats typically use

side-by-side text (facing pages or same page), alternating paragraphs, or a story in one language with key terms in another (glossary/footnote style), often with distinct fonts/colors for visual cues, allowing for direct comparison or reading in one language while learning the other. Common structures include the "flipped book" (one language then the other when reversed) and digital versions with select-able text or integrated translations. 

 

Common Formats

• Facing Pages/Side-by-Side: The most common print format, with one language on the left page and its translation on the right, or one above the other on the same page.
• Alternating Paragraphs: Text flows from one language to the next, often with a visual break or color change to separate them.
• Flipped/Reversible Book: One language reads from front to back, and when flipped, the other language reads from back to front.
• Piecemeal/Glossary Style: Primarily in one language, with key words or phrases in the second language, often with explanations in footnotes or an end glossary.
• E-book Format: Can use a similar structure, often with the second language starting after the first, or interactive elements to show translations, notes this GitHub page. 

Design Tips

• Font & Color: Use distinct fonts (serif/sans-serif) or colors for each language to help readers differentiate them quickly.
• Proximity: Keep the corresponding texts close together to maintain the connection.
• Structure: Use neutral chapter/section titles (e.g., "Part 1") to avoid confusion in bilingual tables of contents.
• Clarity: Ensure paragraphs aren't too long to fit within the layout.

Question: Why not inter-linear as a possibility for formatting a bilingual book? 

Lexical versus interpretive fidelity--DRAFT

Machine translations of English to Czech have proven disappointing, not that this isn't a problem with other language pairs.

Even though Czech speakers depend upon DeepL and (very few) other translation services, they can judge the quality of machine translation. However, isn't it true that, for the most part, once meaning has become clear with the aid of the Czech rendered, albeit not perfect, that is enough? The meaning-maker can and arguably does move on once that goal is reached, and then discards and proceeds with life beyond the source and translated texts.

If the purpose on the other hand is not just expedient meaning-making but accuracy of expression to be compared favorably with the original (that is, the source), and that translation will be shared (e.g., published) with a critical and sensitive audience of whatever age, background, etc., human intervention is required--perhaps mandatory. Authors would no doubt demand the best translations of their work, wouldn't they? Don't they?

AI and machine translations, it is said, have not been able to replicate the fully human side of communication. Implementations fail at the requisite interpretative expertise of qualified language professionals.

Recently, DeepL failed to translate to translate a  children's story properly from the original English. (You would think that this would be a straight-forward, simple and correctly executed task.) Two problems Czech proofreaders pointed out: One, the Czech translation followed the sentence structure of the English; therefore not authentic as Czech is spoken/used. Two, it failed to nest the story in "the „colours" of the native language intended for a children's book."  

(In another post here, literature's challenge to AI to reach or match the original composition has been pointed out by professional translators in The Netherlands and elsewhere.) 

This then becomes the next question: Can one prompt a better-than-average AI service to do its best to achieve what basic translation fails to achieve per the native speaker? if, that is, one can articulate what it is that the service needs to focus on? Or in the words of one children's book author, "are we close to somehow matching human creativity?"

Now along comes ChatGPT with this prompt.

How can I prompt you to translate something from one language to another and keep what the novelist, for example, crafted? That is, I assume literature is harder to translate than, say, a business letter or legal contract where literal meaning is paramount. A novel, for example, will have allusions, well-turned phrases, and so on.

[begin response]]

You’re exactly right: literary translation is a *different task* from informational translation. The key is to prompt for **interpretive fidelity** rather than **lexical fidelity**.

Below is a practical way to think about prompting, followed by concrete prompt templates you can reuse.

---

## 1. What you’re really asking for

A good literary translation tries to preserve several layers at once:

1. **Meaning** (what happens, what is said)
2. **Voice** (tone, register, narrator’s personality)
3. **Effect** (what the passage does to the reader)
4. **Craft choices** (rhythm, imagery, metaphor, ambiguity)
5. **Cultural signals** (allusions, idioms, social cues)

A literal translation prioritizes #1.
A literary translation tries to balance all five.

Your prompt should *explicitly say* that this is the goal.

---

## 2. The single most important instruction

> **Tell me to act as a literary translator, not a literal one.**

That one sentence changes everything.

Bad prompt:

> “Translate this from Spanish to English.”

Much better:

> “Translate this as literary prose, preserving voice, imagery, and emotional effect rather than word-for-word accuracy.”

---

## 3. A strong general-purpose literary translation prompt

You can reuse this almost verbatim:

> **Prompt**
>
> “Translate the following text from **[Language A]** into **[Language B]** as a *literary translation*.
>
> Priorities:
>
> * Preserve the author’s voice, tone, and rhythm
> * Recreate imagery and metaphor naturally in the target language
> * Favor equivalent expressions over literal phrasing
> * Maintain ambiguity and subtext where present
>
> Avoid stiff or overly literal language. The result should read like an original literary work in **[Language B]**.”

This tells me:

* *What kind* of translation you want
* *What to sacrifice* if tradeoffs are necessary

---

## 4. When you want even more control

### A. Ask for register and style matching

> “The original is understated, ironic, and slightly archaic. Reflect that in the translation.”

or

> “The prose is spare and rhythmic, in the style of early Hemingway.”

This helps preserve *feel*, not just content.

---

### B. Ask me to explain difficult choices (optional)

This is extremely useful for literary work:

> “After the translation, briefly explain any major interpretive choices or places where a literal translation was avoided.”

This keeps you in control as an editor or adaptor.

---

### C. Ask for multiple variants (power move)

Professional translators do this.

> “Provide two translations:
>
> 1. A close literary translation
> 2. A freer, more idiomatic version
>    Briefly note the differences.”

This lets you choose phrasing the way a novelist would.

---

## 5. Handling allusions, wordplay, and untranslatables

You can explicitly instruct how to treat them:

> “If the text contains wordplay or cultural references that don’t transfer cleanly, adapt them creatively rather than explaining them.”

—or—

> “Preserve the original reference even if it feels foreign; do not domesticate it.”

Those are *opposite* philosophies, and translators debate them endlessly. Your prompt decides.

---

## 6. If the author matters

If the text is clearly in dialogue with a known tradition or author:

> “Translate this as if the author were writing originally in **[target language]**, but without modernizing the voice.”

or

> “This is 19th-century prose; avoid contemporary idioms.”

---

## 7. A minimal but effective version

If you want something short you can type quickly:

> “Translate this literarily, not literally—preserve voice, imagery, and emotional effect.”

That alone already works surprisingly well.

---

## 8. One honest limitation (important)

Even the best literary translation is **an interpretation**. There is no neutral or “correct” version—only defensible choices. The more guidance you give about tone, era, and priorities, the closer the result will be to what *you* value in the original.

If you like, you can paste a short literary passage (even a paragraph), and I can:

* show how different prompts change the outcome, or
* translate it and annotate the craft decisions line by line.

That’s often the most illuminating way to see this in action.

[end response]

Given this comprehensive response and guidance, and had the children's story author and colleagues alluded to above known and used this, would the machine translation have (almost) met the experts assessment for a final copy?

That is the next project, which will still (opinion!) require competent language users to sign off on final versions. 

Here is the agenda for the next developments in inter-linear translation conversion tools.