input: Ai was born in Los Angeles in 1981. Her father was Japanese and her mother was half Italian-American and half Japanese. She moved to Kagoshima in Japan when she was 4, and went to elementary school and junior high school in Japan.  Ai was motivated to become a singer in her early teens, after singing at a cousin's wedding, having many people ask her if she wanted to be a professional singer, and hearing a gospel performance at the First African Methodist Episcopal Church of Los Angeles in 1993. After graduating from junior high school in Japan, Ai returned to Los Angeles for high school, enrolling at Glendale High School, however found high school difficult due to never formally studying English. After making it through the audition process, she switched to the Los Angeles County High School for the Arts, majoring in ballet. She became a member of the school's gospel choir. In 1998, she performed in a gospel choir at a Mary J. Blige concert at the Universal Amphitheatre, performing of "A Dream." In the same year, she appeared as a dancer in the music video for Janet Jackson's song "Go Deep."  In 1999, she joined an Asian girl group called SX4, who were produced by George Brown of Kool & the Gang. Ai was a member of the group for two years, and later in 1999 the group were offered a record label deal. While on her summer holiday in Kagoshima, she performed Monica's "For You I Will" on a local radio station, which led to her being scouted by BMG Japan. She decided to take the offer, and after leaving SX4 and graduating from high school in June 2000, moved to Tokyo and debuted as a musician later in 2000.

Answer this question "what happened in 1999?"
output: she joined an Asian girl group

input: Jose Marti is usually honored as a great poet, patriot and martyr of Cuban Independence, but he was also a translator of some note. Although he translated literary material for the sheer joy of it, much of the translating he did was imposed on him by economic necessity during his many years of exile in the United States. Marti learned English at an early age, and had begun to translate at thirteen. He continued translating for the rest of his life, including his time as a student in Spain, although the period of his greatest productivity was during his stay in New York from 1880 until he returned to Cuba in 1895.  In New York he was what we would call today a "freelancer" as well as an "in house" translator. He translated several books for the publishing house of D. Appleton, and did a series of translations for newspapers. As a revolutionary activist in Cuba's long struggle for independence he translated into English a number of articles and pamphlets supporting that movement. In addition to fluent English, Marti also spoke French, Italian, Latin and Classical Greek fluently, the latter learned so he could read the Greek classical works in the original.  There was clearly a dichotomy in Marti's feeling about the kind of work he was translating. Like many professionals, he undertook for money translation tasks which had little intellectual or emotional appeal for him. Although Marti never presented a systematic theory of translation nor did he write extensively about his approach to translation, he did jot down occasional thoughts on the subject, showcasing his awareness of the translator's dilemma of the faithful versus the beautiful and stating that "translation should be natural, so that it appears that the book were written in the language to which it has been translated".

Answer this question "Did he translate any other things?"
output: systematic theory of translation nor did he write extensively about his approach to translation, he did jot down occasional thoughts on the subject, showcasing

input: If read superficially, some of Whorf's statements lend themselves to the interpretation that he supported linguistic determinism. For example, in an often-quoted passage Whorf writes:  We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscope flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds--and this means largely by the linguistic systems of our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way--an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data that the agreement decrees. We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity, which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated.  The statements about the obligatory nature of the terms of language have been taken to suggest that Whorf meant that language completely determined the scope of possible conceptualizations. However neo-Whorfians argue that here Whorf is writing about the terms in which we speak of the world, not the terms in which we think of it. Whorf noted that to communicate thoughts and experiences with members of a speech community speakers must use the linguistic categories of their shared language, which requires moulding experiences into the shape of language to speak them--a process called "thinking for speaking". This interpretation is supported by Whorf's subsequent statement that "No individual is free to describe nature with absolute impartiality, but is constrained by certain modes of interpretation even when he thinks himself most free". Similarly the statement that observers are led to different pictures of the universe has been understood as an argument that different conceptualizations are incommensurable making translation between different conceptual and linguistic systems impossible. Neo-Whorfians argue this to be is a misreading since throughout his work one of his main points was that such systems could be "calibrated" and thereby be made commensurable, but only when we become aware of the differences in conceptual schemes through linguistic analysis.

Answer this question "What does he say about how we speak of the world"
output:
Whorf noted that to communicate thoughts and experiences with members of a speech community speakers must use the linguistic categories of their shared language,