Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for Translearner

Channel

Translearner

@Translearner

On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry

9,289subscribers

+22 since we began measuring on 20 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001143784990
TypeChannel
Username@Translearner
CreatedBetween 1 June 2016 and 31 January 2020 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded20 August 2026
Last confirmed live19 September 2026
Measurements held9
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 19 September 2026
On Telegramt.me/Translearner

Topic

Education — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 11 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 100% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.

Growth

9,2679,3129,289.520 August 2026 — 9,267 subscribers20 August 2026 — 9,267 subscribers24 August 2026 — 9,303 subscribers27 August 2026 — 9,312 subscribers30 August 2026 — 9,306 subscribers7 September 2026 — 9,301 subscribers11 September 2026 — 9,299 subscribers15 September 2026 — 9,296 subscribers19 September 2026 — 9,289 subscribers9,28920 August 202619 September 2026
9 measurements spanning 30 days, net +22. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 9,260–9,319 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
19 Sept 2026, 08:409,289-7
15 Sept 2026, 03:009,296-3
11 Sept 2026, 10:179,299-2
7 Sept 2026, 01:569,301-5
30 Aug 2026, 09:169,306-6
27 Aug 2026, 06:049,312+9
24 Aug 2026, 03:079,303+36
20 Aug 2026, 05:039,267no change
20 Aug 2026, 00:019,267first reading

Engagement

25 posts held, back to 21 June 2025the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 14 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
3.99%
avg views ÷ 9,289 subscribers
Avg views / post
371
2 posts measured
Reaction rate
2.83%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
2
of 25 held

ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.

ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views — note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.

What these figures were computed from
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 27 August 2026
Posts held25 (21 June 202527 August 2026)
Views total742
Reactions total21
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken29 Aug 2026, 07:15 UTC

Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.

Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.

Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.

Reaction mix

546 reactions across 24 posts, in 5 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 67.6% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
36967.6%
👏10819.8%
👌437.88%
🤩183.30%
🤯81.47%

No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.

Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.

Coverage. Reactions were read on 24 of the 25 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 546 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 25 most recent posts we hold, published 21 June 2025 to 27 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.

Recent posts

27 Aug 2026, 16:29 UTC449 views10 reactionsread 29 August 2026
Poll

Red-eyed tree frogs.

  1. ضفادع الشجر حمراء العينين.43%
  2. ضفادع الشجر حمراء الأعين.57%

Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

👏63👌1

Signed Ali Mohamed Magdy QE

26 Aug 2026, 12:29 UTC293 views11 reactionsread 29 August 2026
Forwarded from @NahwForTrans

☸️ أتعلم ما "اللحن"؟🤔 وما صلته بالمحتوى الذي ننشره؟ 🤓 ☸️ هلمَّ معي أيها القارئ النجيب، لنطويَ سجلات الزمان، ونعود إلى البدايات الأولى لاتساع رقعة الدولة الإسلامية؛ لنقف على القصة الحقيقية لاختراع «علم النحو»، ولنعرف نبأ ذلك «اللحن» الذي بث الرعب في نفوس أجدادنا الأماجد. في تلك العهود الخوالي، أخذ العرب يخالطون الأعاجم، فتداخلت الألسنة، وفجأةً، أخذت الكلمات تتعثر في الأفواه، وبدأ الخطأ يتسلل إلى لغة الضاد؛ فظهر حينئ

👏83

Signed Ali Mohamed Magdy QE

23 Aug 2026, 15:10 UTC464 views7 reactionsread 29 August 2026
Forwarded from @NahwForTrans

☸️ من الأخطاء البلاغية الشائعة في الترجمات، الظن بوجوب تطابق طرفي الجملة في التذكير والتأنيث دائمًا. ☸️ فلترجمة: She's the devil herself. لا تقُل: إنها الشيطان بذاتها. ❌ وقُل: إنها الشيطان بذاته. ✅ وقُل: إنها بذاتها الشيطان. ✅ ☢️ أولًا: التنافر الصوتي (لماذا الترجمة الأولى خاطئة؟): تنص القاعدة العربية على أن "الضمير يعود على أقرب مذكور". ففي جملة (إنها الشيطان بذاتها)، الكلمة الأقرب للضمير المؤنث (ها) هي كلمة (الشي

👏52

Signed Ali Mohamed Magdy QE

23 Aug 2026, 12:54 UTC574 views10 reactionsread 29 August 2026
Poll

She's the devil herself.

  1. إنها الشيطان بذاتها.20%
  2. إنها الشيطان بذاته.80%

Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

👌8🤩2

Signed Ali Mohamed Magdy QE

21 Aug 2026, 14:04 UTC548 views9 reactionsread 29 August 2026
Forwarded from @NahwForTrans

☸️ من الأخطاء الأسلوبية والنحوية الشائعة في الترجمات المعاصرة، وضع كلمة "حتى" متطرفةً في نهاية الجملة تأثرًا بالبنية الإنجليزية. ☸️ فلترجمة: It made me doubt myself even. لا تقُل: جعلني أشك في نفسي حتى. ❌ وقُل: جعلني أشك حتى في نفسي. ✅ ☢️ تركيب "في نفسي حتى" يُعد خطأً جسيمًا وركاكة أسلوبية ناتجة عن الترجمة الحرفية. فكلمة "حتى" في لغتنا هي حرف، وحروف المعاني أدوات ربط لا تقع متطرفة في نهاية الكلام، بل يجب أن تتقدم

👏81

Signed Ali Mohamed Magdy QE

18 Aug 2026, 13:54 UTC832 views13 reactionsread 29 August 2026

اختر إجابتك ثم انقر على الشرح 😁👇🏻 من الأخطاء الدلالية الشائعة التي تتسلل إلى نصوص المترجمين، الخلط بين تراكيب الفورية وتراكيب الشك والتخيير عند ترجمة (Whether) أو (If) في سياق الاستفهام غير المباشر. ☸️ فلترجمة: I don't know whether it’s gonna be AI or climate change, but humans are doomed لا تقُل: لا أدري ما إن كان سيكون الذكاء الاصطناعي أم تغير المناخ، لكن البشر هالكون. ❌ وقُل: لا أدري ما إذا كان الذكاء الاصطناعي

👏85

Signed Ali Mohamed Magdy QE

18 Aug 2026, 12:42 UTC727 views8 reactionsread 29 August 2026
Poll

I don't know whether it’s gonna be AI or climate change, but humans are doomed.

  1. لا أدري ما إن كان سيكون الذكاء الاصطناعي أم تغير المناخ، لكن البشر هالكون.23%
  2. : لا أدري هل سيكون السبب الذكاء الاصطناعي أو تغير المناخ، لكن البشر هالكون.39%
  3. كلتاهما صحيحة.15%
  4. كلتاهما خطأ.24%

Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

8

Signed Ali Mohamed Magdy QE

15 Aug 2026, 16:59 UTC732 views11 reactionsread 29 August 2026
Forwarded from @NahwForTrans

☸️ مما يُخطّأ في نحو الترجمات وهو صحيح؛ تخطئة بعض المراجعين لاستخدام حرف الجر "عن" مع كلمة "بدل"، بادعاء أنه خطأ لغوي شائع وأنها لا تتعدى إلا بـ"من". ☸️ فلترجمة: He called Stephen to ask him to attend the meeting instead of him. قُل: اتصل بـ"ستيفن" ليطلب منه الحضور بدلًا عنه. ✅ وقُل: اتصل بـ"ستيفن" ليطلب منه الحضور بدلًا منه. ✅ ✅ ☢️ لا شك أن تركيب "بدلًا من" هو الأفصح والأعلى بلاغة، وهو الأكثر ورودًا في التنزيل الح

11

Signed Ali Mohamed Magdy QE

10 Aug 2026, 19:15 UTC≈1,150 views28 reactionsread 29 August 2026

☸️ من الأخطاء الأسلوبية واسعة الشيوع في الترجمة المعاصرة، أسلوب "لو كنت... كنت سأكون". هذا الأسلوب الهجين هو مسخ لغوي وُلد من رحم الترجمة الحرفية، فدعونا نُشرِّحه ونعيد إليه فصاحته المفقودة. لترجمة: Had I stayed in Egypt, I would have been a tuk-tuk driver. لا تقل: لو كنت قد ظللت في مصر كنت سأكون سائق توكتوك. ❌ وقل: لو بقيت في مصر، لكنت سائق توكتوك. ✅ وقل: لو ظللت في مصر، لصرت سائق توكتوك. ✅✅ لماذا الترجمة الأول

16👏11🤩1

Signed Ali Mohamed Magdy QE

10 Aug 2026, 19:15 UTC921 views9 reactionsread 29 August 2026
Photo

Photo, posted without a caption

👏6🤩3

Signed Ali Mohamed Magdy QE

7 Aug 2026, 17:20 UTC≈1,120 views22 reactionsread 29 August 2026
Poll

It could be storming outside, and he would still go out.

  1. حتى ولو كانت هناك عاصفة، كان سيخرج.11%
  2. وإن هبت عاصفة في الخارج، كان سيخرج.16%
  3. حتى لو هبت عاصفة، لما منعه ذلك من الخروج.56%
  4. كان سيخرج، حتى لو كانت هناك عاصفة.16%

Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

13👏6🤩3

Signed Ali Mohamed Magdy QE

3 Aug 2026, 12:38 UTC≈1,410 views27 reactionsread 29 August 2026

في ترجمة أسماء العائلات: بين "الأسرة" و"العائلة" و"الآل" ☸️ جرت العادة في الترجمة على نقل صيغة الجمع لاسم العائلة في الإنجليزية (مثل: The Simpsons) إلى "عائلة كذا" (عائلة سيمبسون). غير أني أرى في هذا الاستخدام إشكالية دلالية ونحوية؛ إذ قد يقتصر المعنى المقصود في السياق على الزوج وزوجته فقط، وحينها سيفرض لفظ "العائلة" على المترجم قيودًا نحوية كالتأنيث أو الجمع في الضمائر والصفات اللاحقة، في حين أن الصحيح هو التثني

20👏6👌1

Signed Ali Mohamed Magdy QE

Showing the 12 most recent of 25 posts we hold for @Translearner. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.

Polls

The 6 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.

27 Aug 2026, 16:29 UTCAnonymous Quiz223 voters

Red-eyed tree frogs.

  1. ضفادع الشجر حمراء العينين.43%
  2. ضفادع الشجر حمراء الأعين.57%

Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

23 Aug 2026, 12:54 UTCAnonymous Quiz183 voters

She's the devil herself.

  1. إنها الشيطان بذاتها.20%
  2. إنها الشيطان بذاته.80%

Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

18 Aug 2026, 12:42 UTCAnonymous Quiz219 voters

I don't know whether it’s gonna be AI or climate change, but humans are doomed.

  1. لا أدري ما إن كان سيكون الذكاء الاصطناعي أم تغير المناخ، لكن البشر هالكون.23%
  2. : لا أدري هل سيكون السبب الذكاء الاصطناعي أو تغير المناخ، لكن البشر هالكون.39%
  3. كلتاهما صحيحة.15%
  4. كلتاهما خطأ.24%

Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

7 Aug 2026, 17:20 UTCAnonymous Quiz267 voters

It could be storming outside, and he would still go out.

  1. حتى ولو كانت هناك عاصفة، كان سيخرج.11%
  2. وإن هبت عاصفة في الخارج، كان سيخرج.16%
  3. حتى لو هبت عاصفة، لما منعه ذلك من الخروج.56%
  4. كان سيخرج، حتى لو كانت هناك عاصفة.16%

Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

3 Aug 2026, 12:00 UTCAnonymous Quiz168 voters

The Eisenbergs found themselves threatened with losing their baby girl.

  1. وجد آل "آيزنبيرغ" أنفسهما مهددين بفقدان طفلتهما.35%
  2. وجد آل "آيزنبيرغ" نفسيهما مهددين بفقدان طفلتهما.46%
  3. وجد آل "آيزنبيرغ" نفسهما مهددين بفقدان طفلتهما.20%

Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

23 Jun 2025, 12:33 UTCAnonymous Quiz928 voters

Don't be sad, and be brave.

  1. لا تكوني حزينة وتحلي بالشجاعة.10%
  2. لا تحزني وتحلي بالشجاعة.27%
  3. تشجعي ولا تحزني.31%
  4. عليك بالشجاعة ولا تحزني.6%
  5. لا تشعري بالحزن وتشجعي.3%
  6. كلها صحيحة.23%

Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.

The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.

Read from the 25 most recent posts we hold, published 21 June 2025 to 27 August 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.

Forward network

Republishes

Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.

Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.

Mentions

A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.

Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels

The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.

Abanoub Aziz
@azizabanoub · 74,179
Telegram ranks this channel #44 of 83 here — alongside 82 others — read 20 August 2026

This channel appears in 1 seed channel's Telegram-generated recommendation list in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.

Cite this entry

A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 19 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“Translearner” (@Translearner), 9,289 subscribers as measured 19 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Translearner.

Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.