This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [Translation-i18n] xtensa message pluralization
- From: "augustine dot sterling at gmail dot com" <augustine dot sterling at gmail dot com>
- To: Bruno Haible <bruno at clisp dot org>
- Cc: translation-i18n at lists dot sourceforge dot net, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 09:40:29 -0800
- Subject: Re: [Translation-i18n] xtensa message pluralization
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20171107082716.GY10905@bubble.grove.modra.org> <CAGSvup9PD8-HHADP2=YVMLyK59bkLOr7-QbvhU6CAbziDacLFg@mail.gmail.com> <20171108101629.GB10905@bubble.grove.modra.org> <8121408.RSghLZSf2W@omega>
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
>> A question for the translation project: I'm wondering if
>> I should allow translators to change sentence construction order with
>> something like the following patch?
>
> The proposed patch violates rule #2 "Entire sentences" from [1].
> In particular, it separates subject and verb of the same sentence
> into different format strings. This does not work, because in some
> languages the verb's form depends on the subject's gender.
>
> Therefore it should better not be applied.
>
I know almost nothing about the mechanics and best-practices of
translation, but I am very supportive and believe it should be done.
To that extent, I support modifying the grammar of the messages, but
have no opinion at all about how such modification should look.