Talk:interpreter

I tried to broaden the def to cover not just spoken/heard language but also signed language, which this term is commonly used with reference to. I took the phrasing about being "exposed to" a user of one language from Wikipedia. The def probably still needs work. - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It is an improvement. I couldn't rephrase it better without using the verb "interpret" which will be trouble. Do you have any feeling about this tech sense: "(computing) A program which executes another program written in a programming language other than machine code". I think this is accurate but I don't think it captures the nature of what is happening. It's not like "look at all these execution programs, some of them are terps only because it isn't m/c" -- the idea is that it's "reading" the code at run-time, rather than compiling it in advance like a traditional compiler. Equinox ◑ 01:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I had a go. Equinox ◑ 02:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * :) I was just about to say (and edit-conflicted), I see what you mean about the computing sense, and was going to suggest something like "(computing) A program which executes each statement or instruction of a program written in a high-level language before going to the next statement. "? (Your def looks good.) I also tweaked the first definition a bit further, making more prominent that interpreting is done close to the time of communication, seemingly what distinguishes it from translation. Wikipedia uses the qualifier that the person interprets a remark "after one exposure" to it, which seems to be getting at the same thing, but from another angle that might be worth mentioning. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Is really a fitting translations for the sense "One who conveys what a user of one language is saying or signing, in real time or shortly after that person has finished communicating, to a user of a different language. (Contrasted with a translator.)"? I personally don't understand it as such. --Fytcha (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, BAICAN XXX is globally locked and one of the worst Romanian offenders across all Wiki projects – anything he or any of his many (many) sockpuppets has touched, should be reverted on sight or checked thoroughly (for more information about his block, read this). Now back to traducător – the term is nowadays used very loosely and, considered by many, incorrectly. For instance, DCR2 (1997) mentions the profession interpret-traducător with the meaning "Persoană aptă să desfășoare atât activități de interpretariat cât și de traducere" which is somewhat in line with the English definition. Many just use traducător for short, but I understand your concerns – do you feel comfortable adding a qualifier along the lines of "rare(ly)"? Robbie SWE (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's quite the rabbit hole you've sent me down on. Is BAICAN XXX still creating new socks to this day or has his activity ceased after the global lock?
 * definitely is an option in my eyes. Alternatively, what do you think about ? We can also just write . Tell me what you like best! Fytcha (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Last sock belonging to Baican was identified in 2020 - as far as I know, he hasn't participated since. But he's pretty relentless so it wouldn't surprise me if he pops up again. Think we can write "loosely", not so sure about "hypernym" though. I'll let you decide! Robbie SWE (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)