rag. Gustavino BevilacquaInternational poll, so please boost for a wider sample.
How many languages can you read (and, of course, understand!) without the help of an online translator?
> 5
4-5
2-3
1
Poll ended at .
xrvs@GustavinoBevilacqua >without the help of an online translator
what about offline translator or dictionaries 
I don't think a lot of people will browse a paper dictionary, nowadays, except maybe for the few languages unsupported by google translator.
I'd count this as a +1, for the effort required.
Fred_S_at (2nd spare)
slideman@GustavinoBevilacqua @xarvos No, you’re assuming a paper dictionary takes more effort. If the dictionary is to hand, as it is to many linguists in many reading situations, to a user familiar with paper dictionaries the effort is often no greater, and the result often better: eg the ability to see several similar headwords in one opening v-à-v having to enter a fresh search term for another variant.
I'm aware of the advantage of paper vs. screen (and on maps is even higher), but the most of the working places I know, mine at first, are too cluttered even for a Collins pocket Dictionary… 🥴
@GustavinoBevilacqua @xarvos “Too cluttered for a dictionary” is a priority choice viz. you deem other things more important. If for whatever reason you *need* the paper dictionary, you move it up the priority list and stow something else to make space.
@slideman @GustavinoBevilacqua also assumed that an offline dictionary is necessarily on paper. though, in case of some languages not written in latin alphabet (especially one like chinese or japanese) arnd the text is not on a computer, you’d still have to know a good chunk of the language either way
Caspar Fairhall@GustavinoBevilacqua @xarvos You get a lot more out of a good dictionary. Speed and convenience doesn’t equate to better or deeper knowledge.
Peter Sullivan@xarvos @GustavinoBevilacqua Still cheating, I would've said. Bu then, it's not my poll!