Arctocentric?

If "arctocentric" was a word, Google would be displaying it, instead of just being provincial. Yo! Sometimes people actually are looking up places in the Southern Hemisphere. Note that even putting it in quotes doesn't help!

Ukrainian, not Russian

Oddly, the translation algorithm actually realized that this construction means "is four years old" - though not "is ONLY four" as the всього makes it mean. But it doesn't really understand what's happening in the grammar. If it did, it would know that the noun whose age is being given is in the dative. The word for "stamp" is марка (marka). Марко (Marko) is a very common boy's name. The word here is Марку (Marku) - that's the dative for the name. The dative for a stamp is марці (martsi).

Also, this is Ukrainian, not Russian (it sort of knows that - it gets a lot of the Ukrainian words right, like чотири,  хлопчик, врятував, and справжні. But it got tripped up in a few other places. От (ot) is not the Russian preposition "away from" but rather an adverb/interjection meaning something like "lo, voila, here, you see" (it's вот (vot), in Russian). And while рыбалка in Russian is a fishing trip, or the act of fishing, in Ukrainian the word рибалка (rybalka) means "fisherman" (рыбак (rybak) in Russian). And lastly, in Russian the dash is often the copula, in Ukrainian it rarely is; Ukrainians use the verb much, much more often that Russians do.

I would probably translate the last sentence more like "Real heroes do live among us" or "There are real heroes living among us", but that's a stylistic quibble,  not a grammatical or semantic error.

"Mark is only four, but he's already a serious (= genuine) lifeguard. But you can see he loves ice cream like all children. Together with his mom Daria the boy saved a fisherman from the water. They live among us - real heroes."

That's CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow

This was posted in a Facebook group I belong to.

The proper English translation of “Â chryman medi hirgoes henffasiwn” (a phrase from the current book I’m reading) is “With an old-fashioned, long-handled reaping sickle”. However, this is what Google Translate thinks it means

"Editing" does not include copy editing

Or so I must conclude when I see a page like this in a book that lists one person and two companies under "editing".

A good copy editor should have caught this. This is how a computer - in this case Vellum™ - does lists. (Though with just a bit of work you can make most of them resume with 5.)

No actual person scribbling notes on paper does this. Not even after several days would you add to your list with 1 again.

O nice job

Nice job there, Facebook translating algorithm.

But I do wonder: is it the first or second "do" that was unnecessary?

What did they fight for?

This was in my Facebook feed, part of an argument about whether the UPA was really a fascist army. It's in Russian, and avoids that question for a more pragmatic answer.

Bing translates this as:
-Over that fought the Wehrmacht?
-For The Third Reich.
-The Third Reich?
-No.
-For which fought the Red Army?
-For The Ussr.
-USSR have?
-No.
-UPA fought for that?
-for an independent Ukraine.
-Independent Ukraine have?
-There are
-Otozh!

And Google as:
- For that I fought the Wehrmacht?
- During the Third Reich.
- Third Reich there?
-- No.
- For that fought the Red Army?
- During the Soviet Union.
- USSR there?
-- No.
- For that I fought the UPA?
- For Ukraine's independence.
- Independent Ukraine there?
-- There is
- Otozh!

Bing recognizes that the questions do, in fact, have subjects, where Google is thrown by (I guess) the word order and twice supplies one - the wrong one. It looks like the case marking on Красная Армия clued it in that time.

For some reason Bing varies its translation of "За что воевал(а) X" - what did X fight for - giving us three, the first two of which are okay. Google uses the same translation, but since it's interpolating "I" it's still wrong.

Bing screws up the simple "X есть?" questions - it's just "Does X exist?" - translating есть as "have". There is an idiomatic phrase "У X есть N?" meaning "Does X have?" but the У is crucial to that, as it's literal "Is there N at X?" or "Does N exist at X?". These questions aren't that one. Google is wrong, too, but differently, translating есть as "there".

Google also gets the wrong meaning for За in the answers. It's the same За - For - not the temporal one. You'd think it would realize that the answer to "What did X fight for?" would not be when X fought.

And neither of them got Отож! Which is, I suppose, somewhat understandable since it's not a Russian word. They do both get it when presented with it stand-alone and labelled Ukrainian.

My translation:
"What did the Wehrmacht fight for?"
"For the Third Reich."
"Does the Third Reich exist?" (or "Is there a Third Reich?")
"No."
"What did the Red Army fight for?"
"For the USSR."
"Does the USSR exist?" (or "Is there a USSR?")
"No."
"What did the UPA fight for?"
"For an independent Ukraine."
"Does an independent Ukraine exist?" (or "Is there an independent Ukraine?")
"Yes." (or "There is")
"So there!" (Or "Aha!" or "See!" or even maybe "Take that!")

Seriously, what IS it with Bing?

Why does Bing's algorithm consistently move words around in the sentence? I understand that sometimes it doesn't know what a word means. This is something else entirely.

In his post congratulating the Ukrainian Eurovision winner, Jamala, Arseniy Yatsenyuk said:
Браво, Джамало!!! Блискуча і заслужена перемога! Вражаюча сила таланту і безмежна глибина пісні. Україна перемагає і перемагатиме, Крим буде українським!!!

And Bing translated that like this:
Bravo, dzhamalo!!! Brilliant and deserved victory! Impressive Talent Unlimited Strength and depth of the song. Winning Ukraine and crimea peremahatyme, will gave!!!

My translation:
"Bravo, Jamala! A brilliant and well-deserved victory! Impressive strength of talent and measureless depths of the song. Ukraine wins, and will win, Crimea will be Ukrainian!"

So once again not only does Bing not know some important words (like "перемагатиме, will win", it elects to leave out some important words entirely (it's not "Winning Ukraine and Crimea will win", it's "Ukraine is winning and will win, (and) Crimea will be Ukrainian"), it also just chucks words randomly around. It's not "impressive talent, unlimited strength and depth of the song". It's "Impressive strength of talent and unlimited depth of the song". And what the hell is up with that "will gave" at the end?

Oh, Bing. Oh, Google. Oh, my.

Сьогодні День народження Любомира Гузара - совісті нашої нації, визначного мужа Церкви і видатного українця. Довгих і благих літ Вам, дорогий Владико. Ви - дороговказ для тих, хто шукає вірного життєвого шляху.

Bing (if that's who FB is still using):
Today birthday lyubomyra huzara - conscience of our nation, vyznachnoho muzha churches and Russia ukrayintsya. Long and blahykh winters you, dear vladyko. You - dorohovkaz for those who seek virnoho zhytteyevoho way.

Google:
Today is the birthday Lubomyr Husar - the conscience of our nation, an outstanding man and an outstanding Ukrainian Church. Long and happy years to you, dear Lord. You - a guide for those seeking a true way of life.

Well, Bing escapes a lot of criticism by the simple expedience of not knowing what most of the words mean. (Ukrayintsa? You can't guess that one???) But it misses on літо, lito: it's "summer" not "winter". (Though in a wish like this, it's "year".) Google bravely translates and words and lets the grammar destroy it: for instance, the bishop (владика, vladika - vladiko is the vocative) is "an eminent man of the church" and "a prominent Ukrainian", not "an outstanding Ukrainian Church". Oy. 

But  honestly, Bing. Where in the actual heck did you get the word "Russia"? 

Today is the birthday of Lubomyr Huzak - our nation's conscience,  an eminent man of the church and a prominent Ukrainian. Long and happy years to you, dear bishop. You are a guide for those who seek the true path in life.

'Playboy', Bing?

So, today Petro Poroshenko posted this:

Сьогодні урочисту присягу складають бійці Управління спеціальних операцій - це дуже важливий етап у створенні НАБУ.

Висловлюю повну політичну підтримку зусиллям Національного антикорупційного бюро. Ніхто в нашій країні не застрахований від того, аби опинитися в полі прискіпливої уваги детективів бюро.

Жодні зв'язки не дають індульгенції і захисту!

You can see Bing's effort:

Today urochystu oath form fighters special operations management is very important milestone in creating nabu.
Vyslovlyuyu full political support to the National Antykoruptsiynoho Bureau. Nobody in our country not guarantees from here to find myself in the field pryskiplyvoyi attention detectives office.
None relationships playboy inhul'hentsiyi and protection!

And here's Google's version:

now make a solemn oath to the soldiers of the Special Operations - a very important stage in the creation of NABU.

I express my full political support to the efforts of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau. No one in our country is immune from what was to be a meticulous attention Detective Bureau.

No links do not give indulgence and protection!

Google can't tell when 'today' means 'nowadays' or really 'today', but that would be asking quite a lot. Unfortunately, 'soldiers' isn't in the dative, but the nominative - they're the ones making the oath. Google also disregarded the capital letter on 'Directorate' and chose to leave it out - they're soldiers of the Special Operations Directorate. Also, it's "from what will be" and "OF the detectives OF the bureau". And the required double negative defeats it when it comes to good English - 'No links (or, better, connections) will give'.

Bing, on the other hand ... Wow. Not only does it not recognize  Antykoruptsiynoho as being Anticorruption or indul'hentsiyi as 'indulgence',  it gets messed up by oblique cases of adjectives, genitive constructions with nouns, and several things about verbs mess it up badly. For instance, its algorithm tells it that -sya (reflexive) verbs are "... myself" whether that makes sense or not. It can't tell a passive participle from an active verb (застрахований means 'to be insured against, immune from, protected from'): 'nobody not guarantees' is, double negative aside, quite different from 'nobody not guaranteed'. Errr, 'nobody is guaranteed'. 

But mainly. WHAT THE  HECK is 'playboy' doing in there? How does the verb дають, 'they give', turn into 'playboy'? I mean, if you plug 'playboy' into ABBYY Lingvo, it offers  you плейбой, джиґун, ледар, марнотратник життя; reversing that gives you, respectively, nothing (it's just 'pleyboy'), ladies' man, idler, spendthrift (literally 'waster, squanderer of life'. There's no reason whatsoever for 'playboy' to be in that sentence.

ps - for Kathie... yes, I'm surely tempted "not to change the output" here; a "decision to leave it alone" would be more than just "frustrating".

Nice job, I mean it

Some really sweet machine translations via Facebook - I have to assume it's still Bing, but they aren't putting their name on them any more.

Word order and syntax. They matter.

So, a translator friend alerted me to this list of the five best language translation tools and noted that both Bing and Google Translate are on it. (Two of the nominated apps seem to be mainly for signs and menus and the like.) Well, if you read my blog you know how I feel about both of those tools. And here's another short example.

Mikheil Saakashvili, the ex-president of Georgia who's now governor of the Odesa Oblast in Ukraine, has a habit of posting to his Facebook page in both Ukrainian and Russian. Here's something he wrote yesterday (pics at the bottom of the post). Each version is 7 sentences, 64 words in all:

Сьогодні мав честь вручити нагороду «Народний Герой України» приголомшливим людям. Серед них Мустафа Джамільов - великий татарин і патріот України. Мене вразив Вадим Довгорук. Йому в Дебальцевому гранатою відірвало руку, а потім лікарі були змушені ампутувати обидві ноги через обмороження. Він залишився служити в ВС і пішов вчитися на військового психолога. Дивовижно сміливий, життєрадісний хлопець. Народ, у якого є такі герої, ніколи не перемогти.
—
Сегодня имел честь вручить награду «Народный Герой Украины» потрясающим людям. Среди них Мустафа Джамилев – великий татарин и большой патриот Украины. Меня поразил Вадим Довгорук. Ему в Дебальцево гранатой оторвало руку, а потом врачи были вынуждены ампутировать обе ноги из-за обморожения. Он остался служить в ВС и пошел учиться на военного психолога. Удивительно смелый, жизнерадостный парень. Народ, у которого есть такие герои, никогда не победить.

Both programs had a terrible time with this little text. Depending on how you feel about translating proper nouns, there are either 12 or 15 major errors, and several are serious enough to make the translation simply unusable.

Bing labeled its efforts "Partly translated by Bing" as several words were beyond it:

Today had the honor to award "national hero of Ukraine» terrific people. Among them is Mustafa Džamìl′ov-the great Tatar and patriot of Ukraine. Impressed Vadim Dovgoruk. In Debal′cevomu a grenade shot the arm, and then the doctors were forced to amputate both legs due to frostbite. He left to serve in the US and went to study at the military psychologist. Amazingly daring, cheerful guy. People who are heroes, never win.
—
Today had the honour to give the award of the "people's hero of Ukraine" amazing people. Among them, Mustafa Джамилев-great tartar and a great patriot of Ukraine. I was struck by the vadim довгорук. Him in debaltseve grenade lost his arm, and then the doctors were forced to amputate both legs because of frostbite. He stayed to serve in the sun and went to learn from the military psychologist. Surprisingly brave, cheerful guy. The people, which has such heroes, never going to win.

And here's how Google handles those paragraphs:

Today had the honor to present the award "National Hero of Ukraine" terrific people. Mustafa Dzhamilov Among them - a great patriot Tartar and Ukraine. I was struck by Vadim Dolgoruky. Debaltseve grenade into his hand blown off, and doctors had to amputate both legs due to frostbite. He left to serve in the Armed Forces and went to study at a military psychologist. Wonderfully bold, cheerful guy. People, who are these heroes never win.

Today had the honor of presenting the award "People's Hero of Ukraine" terrific people. Among them, Mustafa Jamil - the great Tartar and a great patriot of Ukraine. I was struck by Vadim Dovgoruk. Him Debalcevo grenade severed hand, and then the doctors were forced to amputate both legs due to frostbite. He was to serve in the Armed Forces and went to study at a military psychologist. Surprisingly bold, cheerful guy. People that has such heroes, never win.

Here we go:

1. Сьогодні мав честь / Сегодня имел честь : This is perhaps the most minor of the errors. They have not restored the personal pronoun, which is easily and routinely dropped in East Slavic languages ("today I had the honor").
   
   
2. вручити нагороду «Народний Герой України» приголомшливим людям / вручить награду «Народный Герой Украины» потрясающим людям : They handled "present the award" in various ways, all acceptable, but then they both ignored the case ending on людям. It's in the dative, so it should be "to (amazing/terrific) people".
   
   
3. Мустафа Джамільов / Мустафа Джамилев: his name is generally transliterated as Mustafa Dzhemilev. Between them they offer us Džamìl′ov, Dzhamilov, Jamil, and Джамилев.
   
   
4. татарин is a Tatar. "Tartar" is an old-fashioned variant.
   
   
5. великий татарин і патріот України / великий татарин и большой патриот Украины. Much worse is how Google handles the Ukrainian phrase that Tatar is in: a great patriot Tartar and Ukraine. First they move "patriot" where it doesn't belong, and then they ignore the case ending, turning "of Ukraine" into a bare "Ukraine". A note: in Russian, Saakashvili uses two different words for "great" - the first one might best be translated as eminent, though "great" will certainly do. Ukrainian uses the same word for both senses ("great, eminent" and "great, huge"). At any rate, Dzhemilev is being described as two things: a great/eminent Tatar and a huge patriot of Ukraine (or "Ukrainian patriot").
   
   
6. Мене вразив Вадим Довгорук. / Меня поразил Вадим Довгорук. Both languages use the same syntax here - OVS. It's a common way to stress the subject; English will use the passive. I was impressed by Vadym Dovhoruk. Google gets that right; Bing does not. From Ukrainian it simply drops the "me" and gives us Impressed Vadim Dovgoruk, which turns him into the one being impressed; from the Russian, while it understands the syntax, it doesn't seem to know it's a name, plopping in an article and ignoring the capitalization, and doesn't even transliterate it (I was struck by the vadim довгорук.)
   
   
7. Вадим Довгорук itself becomes Vadim Dovgoruk / the vadim довгорук / Vadim Dolgoruky. Normally, from Ukrainian this name is Vadym Dovhoruk, while Russians render it as Vadim Dovgoruk - "dovh-" is the same root as "dolg-", and Dolgoruky is certainly a name that exists, but it's not this man's name.
   
   
8. Йому в Дебальцевому гранатою відірвало руку / Ему в Дебальцево гранатой оторвало руку. Again, unsurprisingly, the syntax is the same in the sentences (Russian and Ukrainian are both East Slavic languages), and it defeats them both. Bing offers us In Debal′cevomu a grenade shot the arm / Him in debaltseve grenade lost his arm and Google Debaltseve grenade into his hand blown off / Him Debalcevo grenade severed hand. This time it's Google I'm not sure knows Debaltsevo is a placename, despite the preposition "in" - it looks more like a brand of grenade, while Bing doesn't drop the case ending (-omu). The syntax of the dative pronoun instead of a possessive ("to him the arm" instead of "his arm"), which is utterly standard, left both applications floundering in confusion. And both of them fail to render this as the instrument it clearly is (instrumental case!)
   
   
9. Дебальцевому / Дебальцево itself is transliterated as Debal′cevomu / debaltseve / Debaltseve / Debalcevo
   
   
10. Він залишився служити / Он остался служить, which is pretty simple ("he remained serving (or "in service")") comes out as He left to serve from the Ukrainian by them both, and He was to serve from the Russian by Google. Bing got that part right from the Russian, but went wildly off the rails with the next clause.
    
    
11. в ВС. This abbreviation, which is very common, floored Bing in both languages. Google got it right ("in the Armed Forces") but Bing offers "in the US" from Ukrainian (I think because "U" and "V" are frequently interchanged, but "US" isn't "US" in Ukrainian, it's SShA (США). Where Bing got "in the sun" from the Russian I have no idea.
    
    
12. і пішов вчитися на військового психолога / и пошел учиться на военного психолога caused no end of grief, too. Bing looks at the preposition but ignores the case in Ukrainian and does the reverse in Russian ("at the military psychologist" and "from the military psychologist"); Google looks at the preposition alone in both ("at a military psychologist"). This particular preposition can take either the locative or the accusative, and here it's the latter. That means it's not "at". What we have is a common idiom meaning "to study to be, to train as".
    
    
13. Дивовижно сміливий, життєрадісний хлопець. / Удивительно смелый, жизнерадостный парень. This is a sentence fragment. Leaving it as such (Amazingly daring, cheerful guy. / Surprisingly brave, cheerful guy. / Wonderfully bold, cheerful guy. / Surprisingly bold, cheerful guy.) is a minor error, if an error at all, but I think "a(n)" is called for even if you're not going to put "He's".
    
    
14. Народ, у якого є такі герої / Народ, у которого есть такие герои For some reason, they both mess up the relative clause (including their comma use) in the Ukrainain: "People who are heroes" from Bing, which ignores the такі, and "People, who are these heroes" from Google which doesn't but gets it wrong. It's "such". Also, they both think народ is "people", meaning the plural of "person", instead of "people" meaning "a nation". In Russian they recognize that the у construction is a possessive (The people, which has such heroes / People that has such heroes) and that it's "the people". However, they've both butchered the main clause:
    
    
15. Народ, у якого є такі герої, ніколи не перемогти. / Народ, у которого есть такие герои, никогда не победить. This final sentence is butchered the same way by both of them in the crucial main clause. Народ is an inanimate noun, meaning its nominative and accusative cases look the same. Both programs treat it as the subject of the main verb, but it's not; it's the object. The main verb is an infinitive. Infinitives have a quasi-modal sense, and don't have subjects: the best way to translate them into English is either a passive or a "one can(not)". Bing offers us People who are heroes, never win / The people, which has such heroes, never going to win, and Google serves up People, who are these heroes never win / People that has such heroes, never win. None of those are right; all of them are completely wrong, reversing entirely Saakashvili's statement: "A people that has such heroes can never be beaten".

So, in short, both Bing and Google Translate mangle six of these seven sentences, none of which are particularly difficult, and manage to make Saakashvili assert the direct opposite of what he actually said. If these are two of the five best, machine translation has a long way to go. Here's how it ought to go:

Today I had the honor to present the award "National Hero of Ukraine" to some amazing people. Among them is Mustafa Dzhemilev, the great Tatar and Ukrainian patriot. I was impressed by Vadym Dovhoruk. At Debaltsevo his hand was torn off by a grenade, and then the doctors were forced to amputate both of his feet due to frostbite. He continued serving in the armed forces, studying to become a military psychologist. He's a remarkably brave and cheerful guy. A nation that has such heroes will never be defeated.

Oh for ... Oh, Bing

The post says:

Молюсь за наших захисників, наших Героїв
Molyus' za nashykh zakhysnykiv, nashykh Heroyiv

And Bing translates that as:
Pray for our quarterbacks, our heroes

Okay, look. Context is important, right Bing? Poroshenko isn't a die-hard sports fan, hoping Ukraine will make it into the UEFA Cup. Well, okay, maybe he is, but that's not what this post is about. And even if it was, please check the actual translations of захисник:

захисник
ч
1) defender, protector; apologist
2) юр. counsel for the defence
3) спорт. fullback

In other words, it's a masculine noun (ч) which has special translations in the legal and sports domains. But in sports it's not a "quarterback" - it's a "fullback".

And that's not even addressing your standard inability to recognize verb conjugations. Not "pray for". "I pray for".

Google Translate gets this sentence almost right (I pray for our defense, our heroes) - just making "denfenders" into "defense". Why can't you?

The biggest lie (albeit not very important)

This:

They lie. I send to this address ALL THE DAMN TIME. And they make me confirm the card about 45% of the time.

Oh, Bing...

Юрій Поправка – один з тих, хто віддав своє життя за волю і віру в свою країну. Наші діти повинні зростати гідними громадянами великої країни Героїв!

Bing gives that as:
Yuri Amendment is one of those who gave their lives for freedom and faith in his country. Our children must grow worthy citizens of a great nation of heroes!

This time, Google is worse:
Yuri amendment - one of those who gave their lives for freedom and faith in his country. Our children should grow worthy citizens of a great country heroes!

Both of them miss the meaning of the instrumental case after зростати, which they both mistranslate as just "grow". As the dictionary puts it, the primary meaning is:

1. (рости) to grow; (про дітей) to grow up

where про дітей means "of children". And the instrumental complement gives the meaning of "to become" or "to be".

And they both - like Mark Twain's translation "'the infuriated tigress broke loose and utterly ate up the unfortunate fir forest' (Tannenwald)" where he "found out that Tannenwald in this instance was a man's name." - translate Yuriy's surname. He's not Yuriy Amendment (Google cavalierly ignores the capitalization); he's Yuri Popravka. 

ps: If you haven't read Twain's "The Awful German Language", you should.

pps: there is an interesting translation problem here. Yuriy might be "one of those (unspecified people) who gave his life". Semantically it's not likely, but it's possible in a context where he was in a group but was the only one to do. The grammar makes it possible, as хто (who) is grammatically singular and masculine regardless of its antecedent, and своє (the possessive "one's own", as opposed to "someone else's") has no number or gender of its own but matches up with the noun it modifies. I wouldn't translate it that way without a good contextual backstory to justify it, but it's grammatically possible.

Also, життя is in a class of neuter nouns where the nominative singular and plural are the same. In this case, in Ukrainian it's actually singular (plural would be свої життя), but that's not so different from English where one could say "one of those who gave their life" and mean the same thing as "their lives".

Nice job, Bing. I'd give you a B+

Oh, Bing. Sooooo close.

ПП: Сьогодні український народ та Збройні сили єдині як ніколи.
Ми переможемо, бо добро завжди перемагає зло!

Bing:
PM: today the Ukrainian people and the armed forces are United as never before.
We'll win, because good always overcomes evil!

Google:
PP: Today Ukrainian people and the armed forces are united as never before.
We will win, because good always triumphs over evil

Google is almost completely correct. I'm not at all sure why Bing translated Poroshenko's initials as PM; surely it wasn't recognizing that it was the Prime Minister? I mean, if it's that smart, why did it capitalize United? Also, in a solemn speech such as this, I don't like "We'll win".

But Bing gets something right that Google missed: it's not "Ukrainian people", it's (as Google has it) "the Ukrainian people". Народ (narod) isn't the plural of person, it's the collective, political-or-ethnic group. The people, the nation.

But otherwise, nice job, Bing.

ps: Note Poroshenko's profile picture: a stylized black-and-red poppy, used in Ukraine for VE Day for the first time, since the old George Ribbon is irredeemably tainted by its association with Russian aggression and separatism.

Pronouns... why the trouble?

"У цьому році я мріяв відсвяткувати 9 травня зі своїм внуком лейтенантом Національної гвардії, але він загинув у бою при захисті своєї Батьківщини", - каже 97-річний ветеран.

Bing translated this as: "This year, I wanted to celebrate may 9 with his grandson, Lieutenant of the National Guard, but he died in battle while defending their homeland," says a 97-year-old veteran. 

 And Google was virtually identical: "This year I wanted to celebrate 9 May with his grandson Lieutenant of the National Guard, but he was killed in battle in defense of their homeland," - says 97-year veteran.

Why do they both just completely miss how to translate свій? WHY? Its very definition is "one's own" - it always goes to the subject of the clause it's in. It cannot be "his" or "their" if the subject is "I' and "he". It exists to eliminate the ambiguity of "John gave Bob his book". Its entire purpose is totally subverted by both these programs. WHY?

MY grandson. HIS homeland.  

So very simple. ... So apparently impossible to derive an algorithm for.

(There are other issues here, like Google's odd punctuation and  the fact that neither one translated мріяв as "dreamed", but let it go, let it go...)

Who asked whom, Bing?

What the hell, Bing?

«Я в берлоге», — Евгений Плющенко попросил общественность забыть про него
"I'm in a den," the public has asked Evgeny Plushenko to forget about him

Come one, Bing. This is straightforward. Masculine noun, masculine verb, feminine noun. Subject-Verb-Object. For crying out loud. (Plus, in yours, who's "him"?) Interestingly, Bing does get the aspect right - perfective Russian verb becomes English perfect.

Google seems to get it more correct but it makes a crucial mistake: it's not "it" he wants them to forget, it's "him". The translation sounds like he's asking the public to forget about his going into the den.

"I'm in the den," - Yevgeny Plushenko asked the public to forget about it

My translation: "I've gone to ground," Yevgeny Plushchenko has asked the public to forget about him. (I could be talked into "holed up" or "hiding out" in some contexts, but here Plushenko wants to be left alone as he prepares for the World Championships and then probably the Olympics; he's not retiring, he just doesn't want to be a distraction... or distracted himself.)

Bing: A twofer

Dear Bing: I accept that you can't deal with productive morphology, so повиганяємо (two prefixes! the horror!) is beyond you. But you really can't turn "with God's help" into "God". Seriously. Stop.

Поганяти means to drive on, to lash, to spur. Виганяти means to drive out. So повиганяти has the sense of vigorously or enthusiastically driving out. The ємо ending is the first person plural, we will drive out.

З Божoю допомогою means "with God's help". Bing's translation, such as it is, sounds like an exhortation to God: God poviganâêmo the vermin!

Google's a little better here... or is it? Their "Bozhoyu help take away that abomination!" at least preserves the 'help', though they don't recognize the instrumental case of Бог, God, and ignore the preposition. However, they still don't provide the correct form of the verb, rendering it as an infinitive complement to 'help', and making it sound like an imperative rather than an assertion.

The correct translation is: "With God's help, we will drive out the vermin!" (Or 'scum'.)

And then in the Russian one, Bing apparently doesn't know that verbs of naming take instrumental complements. They weren't called BY the occupiers; they were called occupiers. Also, the preposition o isn't ever "for". Ever. It's "about" or "on". And из? You can't leave that out. And в with accusative isn't "in", it's "into, to". And once again Bing completely ignores the meaning of the genitive case: of the volunteers. OF THEM.

In this one, Google's worse. They give us: "We called the occupiers." E1.ru about the return of the Donbass in Russian Ural volunteers

Yes, they get that E1.ru is reporting ON the return. But they not only also mishandle из (from) (though in their own way), they top it off by turning Russia into Russian. And they can't handle the naming-verb's instrumental either, so they just ignore it. AND turn "us" into "we"!

It's not "E1.ru for the return of the Donbass region in Russia Ural volunteers", and it's certainly not "E1.ru about the return of the Donbass in Russian Ural volunteers", it's "E1.ru ON the return FROM the Donbass (region) TO Russia OF Ural volunteers".

"They called us occupiers." E1.ru reports on the return to Russia from the Donbass of volunteers from the Ural.

Bing for comparison

Petro Poroshenko posted today on the anniversary of Lech Kaczyński's death. He generally has an official English version with his posts, but that doesn't stop Bing from (ever hopeful!) offering to translate for you.

ПП: П'ять років з дня страшної авіакатастрофи під Смоленськом, внаслідок якої загинув великий друг України Лех Качинський з дружиною та інші сини і доньки польського народу.
Неможливо забути цю страшну трагедію та змиритися з нею.
Завжди пам'ятатиму дружбу та допомогу, яку демонстрував Лех Качинський нашій країні. Він був щирою людиною та відповідальним політиком.
Світла пам'ять.
It is five years today since a dreadful catastrophe near Smolensk took lives of Ukraine's great friend, Lech Kaczyński, his wife and several other Polish dignitaries.
This tragedy will never be forgotten.
I remember Lech Kaczyński as a person who always demonstrated great sympathy and support for Ukraine. He was an honest man and a responsible politician.
Rest in peace.
PM: today marks five years since the terrible plane crash in Smolensk, which was a great friend of Ukraine Lech Kaczyński with his wife and other sons of Polish people.
It is impossible to forget this terrible tragedy and put up with it.
Always will remember the friendship and assistance, which demonstrated the Lech Kaczynski our country. He was a sincere person and a responsible politician.
Light memory. - Translated by Bing

You may note some oddities in Bing that don't seem reflected in the English of the official post. Poroshenko's translator knows about register. We don't generally say things like "others of Poland's sons and daughters" (yes, Bing - and daughters!), and "rest in peace" is the standard phrase, not "bright memory". But please notice Bing's standard horrible grasp of inverted word order: which demonstrated Lech Kaczyński vs. which Lech Kaczyński demonstrated. Also note that Bing just blithely ignores the verb загинув (perished) and translates змиритися (to become reconciled to) as "put up with" - sometimes that works, but not here. Also, the dative case means a preposition in English: TO our country (or "for"), not "demonstrated our country" - with a different verb you could get away without one ("showed our country", but verbs aren't plug-and-play; even with the same meaning they often have different grammatical requirements).

(Here's my much more literal translation for you: 
It is five years since the day of the terrible plane crash near Smolensk, as a result of which perished Ukraine's great friend Lech Kaczyński with his wife and other sons and daughter of the Polish nation.
It is impossible to forget this terrible tragedy, or to become reconciled to it.
I will always remember the friendship and assistance which Lech Kaczyński showed to our country. He was an honest man and a responsible politician.
May his memory be bright.)

Definitely don't use Bing for conversations!

Bing utterly fails to follow the pragmatics of the conversation. Okay, Russian can omit lots of words - more, really, than English - but Bing doesn't even attempt to employ basic cohesive techniques. Also, there is room for translating ее нет as "it doesn't exist" - the pronoun could barely possible be referring to the information - but the next sentence is definitely "who" not "what", so the speaker didn't think so. (Bing also fails utterly to grasp the function of the dash.)

— А вы работали над информацией про убитую девочку?
— Ее нет
— Кого нет?
— Девочки
— Не погибла?
— Нет
— А как же так, передали же?
— Вынуждены были передать. Сами понимаете.

Как вслед за «распятым мальчиком» появилась «расстрелянная девочка». Расследование Би-би-си о пропагандистском фейке «ДНР»:


You worked on the information about the dead girl?
Is It not
-Who doesn't?
-Girls
Is Not lost?
-No
And how have the same?
— Were forced to pass. Understand yourself.

As following the 'crucified boy "appeared" rasstrelânnaâ girl ". Investigation into the BBC's propaganda fejke "DNI":

Google is marginally better:

- And you were working on information about a dead girl?
- It does not exist
- Who is not?
- Girls
- Do not died?
- No I Am Not
- And how is it transmitted the same?
- They were forced to pass. You know.

As after the "crucified boy" came to "shoot the girl." Investigation BBC BBC propaganda about Fake "DNR":

Once again, we get terrible do-support syntax ("do not died?"), and I have no idea why Нет, no, is translated so emphatically (No I Am Not) by Google.

Neither of them can handle the summary either, though they mess it up differently (neither can handle the non-declined BBC, and neither can keep the preposition where it belongs: rassledovanie BBC o propagandistskom fejke DNR = investigation OF BBC ABOUT propaganda fake OF DNR, or with more appropriate English pronouns, Investigation BY the BBC INTO the propaganda fake OF/BY the DNR). Both select nominative plural "girls" as the translation of Девочки, totally ignoring the negation and singular verb and pronoun, pointing (for a person, anyway) to the genitive singular "the girl". Here's my translation:

"Did you work up the information on the murdered girl?"
"She doesn't exist."
"Who doesn't?"
"The girl."
"She didn't die?"
"No."
"Then why on earth did you broadcast that she did??"
"We were forced to. You understand."

How, following the "crucified boy", there was the "girl shot to death". The BBC investigates propaganda fakery from the DPR.