On the basis of "Veni, vidi, vici" is "Veni, bibi, oblidi" remotely correct?

Question

When using Google Translate or eprevodilac from Latin to English, both tools translate the following phrases as shown:

• Veni, vidi, vici → I came, I saw, I conquered (Google Translate)
• Veni, vidi, vici → I came, I saw, I won (eprevodilac)

The other way around gives the following (notice that both translations omit the commas):

• I came, I saw, I conquered → Veni vidi vici (Google Translate)
• I came, I saw, I conquered → Veni vidi vici (eprevodilac)

For the sentence I want to translate, results are as follows:

• Veni, bidi, oblidi → I came, I drank, I forgot (Google Translate)
• Veni, bidi, oblidi → I came, I drank, I forgot (eprevodilac)

The other way around:

• I came, I drank, I forgot → Veni, bibi, oblitus sum (Google Translate)
• I came, I drank, I forgot → Veni, bibi, oblitus sum (eprevodilac)

My questions:

• Why does the translation "seem to work" from one language to the other (i.e., Latin → English), but not the reverse?
• If the translation for "I forgot" is "oblitus sum" (which seems to be the passive indicative perfect tense), why isn't the "I conquered" translation "victus sum"?
• Is the translation of "I came, I drank, I forgot" to "Veni, bidi, oblidi" remotely correct, or not at all?
• Bonus questions: why are the active indicative and subjunctive so rich for "víncere", but almost nonexistent for "oblīvīscēns/oblīvīscéntis"? Can't "to forget" be active in Latin?

I hope my questions are not too stupid...

Answer 1

Bonus questions: why are the active indicative and subjunctive so rich for "víncere", but almost nonexistent for "oblīvīscēns/oblīvīscéntis"? Can't "to forget" be active in Latin?

All natural languages, Latin included, have some irregularities. You just discovered one here, except it's backwards. It's not that the active is missing with obliviscor, rather, it lacks active forms.

Obliviscor falls into the category of verbs known as deponent verbs. These verbs look passive, but they are in fact active in meaning. There are a whole slew of these verbs, including loquor, sequor, and gradior. These verbs are usually indicated as such in the dictionary with with "dep." somewhere or otherwise just giving the principal parts without active forms, such as obliviscor, oblitus.

There are also semi-deponent verbs, which lack active forms in the perfect tenses, but otherwise have active forms in the present tense. Their principal parts will reflect that, too, so gaudeo, gaudere, gavisus.

Why does the translation "seem to work" from one language to the other (i.e., Latin → English), but not the reverse?

Google Translate is not a good tool for Latin. I strongly recommend against using those tools to discover a language's grammar. It can't even get vocabulary correct, and grammar, as you've seen, breaks down when going outside what it "learned."

If the translation for "I forgot" is "oblitus sum" (which seems to be the passive indicative perfect tense), why isn't the "I conquered" translation "victus sum"?

So, because obliviscor is deponent, it's active in meaning but passive in form. Meanwhile, vinco, vincere is not deponent. Its passive forms are also passive in meaning. Victus sum means "I was conquered."

Is the translation of "I came, I drank, I forgot" to "Veni, bidi, oblidi" remotely correct, or not at all?

No. There is no such word oblidi in Latin. [Edit: Oops, this is a Latin word, as cnread points out in the comment. But it is rare and unrelated to obliviscor, and instead comes from oblido, -ere 'to crush'.]

It does sound like obliti, but by itself that would indicate the perfect participle in the masculine plural or genitive singular.