Readit News"English as a programming language" has neither well-defined syntax nor well-defined semantics.
There should be no expectation of a "correct" translation to any programming language.
N.B. Formal languages for specifying requirements and specifications have been in existence for decades and are rarely used.
From what I've observed, people creating software are reluctant to or incapable of producing [natural language] requirements and specifications that are rigorous & precise enough to be translated into correctly working software.
In the theoretical world where a subset of English could be formalized and proven and compiled, the complexity of the language would reduce my willingness to use it. I find that the draw of AI comes from it's "simplicity," and removing that (in favor of correct programs) would be pointless - because such a compiler would surely take forever to compile "English" code, and would not be too different from current high level languages, imo.
I expect a lot of C code may be quite mechanically translated to Zig (by help of LLMs). Unlike C->Rust or C->C++, where there's more of a paradigm shift.
You would need to consider if it is even worth it translating your C code. If the paradigm is identical and the entire purpose would be "haha it is now one language," surely you could just compile and link the C code with libzigc... In my opinion, it's not worth translating code if the benefit of "hey look one language" requires the cost of "let's pray the LLM didn't hallucinate or make a mistake while translating the code."