Bug#382341: INTL:vi

[Clytie Siddall <clytie@riverland.net.au>]

On 13/08/2006, at 5:29 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 04:12:15PM +0930, Clytie Siddall wrote:
>
> > On 13/08/2006, at 4:43 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > > > > - voila
> > > > > > + voilà
>
> > > > > Using non-ASCII in the original English version is likely to  
> > > > > create
> > > > > some problems with PO files handling, os I'd recommend changing  
> > > > > this
> > > > > with caution even if it's certainly correct as the English  
> > > > > speakers
> > > > > have stolen that word from my language..:-)
>
> > > > How about a recommendation not to use words from another language
> > > > unless you can write them properly?
>
> > >  http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=voila
>
> > > Given that such words can be found in English dictionaries, that's
> > > not a very useful recommendation.
>
> > As a linguist, I am aware that incorrect forms of words can be
> > variants in some use.
>
> As a linguist, I and 200 million of my native English-speaking  
> brethren

Steve, I am a native speaker of English, and I lecture in English.  
Otherwise I would not make recommendations on English.

> reject your claim of authority over what constitutes the "correct"  
> spelling
> of a loan word whose source form includes diacritics not present in  
> standard
> English.

According to the dictionary you quoted, "voila" is only a variant of  
the primary form "voilà". Primary forms are preferred over variants.
> > I'd still strongly advise either using the correctly-spelt form of  
> > the
> > word,
>
> I disagree; I think we should only use correctly-spelled forms of  
> words.
>
> I accept "voila" as a valid variant of "voilà" in English;  
> moreover, it's
> the only spelling of the word which is guaranteed to be compatible  
> with .po
> files for all destination languages due to encoding concerns.
>
> > or not using it at all.
>
> Which would be a fair recommendation, but such an interdiction  
> doesn't carry
> much weight if you don't have consensus on the question of what is  
> or isn't
> an acceptably correct form.

I'm agreeing with your dictionary quotation. It would only waste time  
if we compared different dictonaries and got into research papers.  
Consensus on language is a moving target. ;)
> > Translators are not expecting incorrect forms in the original  
> > strings. We
> > have enough difficulty with the wild variety of vocabulary and  
> > syntax used
> > in original strings, without having to cope with incorrect forms of
> > loan words (entire words borrowed from another language).
>
> Quite frankly, I consider that the translators' problem, not the
> maintainers'.  It is quite reasonable to constrain source English  
> strings
> with style rules concerning consistent use of vocab, forms of  
> address, and
> UI references because these are rules that benefit the primary  
> audience of
> the string: the user.  Subsetting the language for the benefit of
> translators, OTOH, is a misoptimization which impoverishes the user
> experience and deprives the translators themselves of opportunities  
> for
> enrichment.

I don't think making translators look up variants of loan words is  
useful. In my experience of translation projects, loan words in  
general are often misunderstood, causing an incorrect translation.  
The GNOME developer's choice to spell "né" as "ne" confused nearly  
all the translators, and wasn't recognized even by the French  
translators.

from Clytie (vi-VN, Vietnamese free-software translation team / nhóm  
Việt hóa phần mềm tự do)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/vi-VN