[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#299278: French programs translation

Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org> tapota :

>> > -it is wrongly named : you should use fr.po rather than fr_FR.po and
>> >I don't really understand why it was renamed that way as former
>> >versions were correct in that matter
>> Well, fr_FR is supposed to be french french, and using fr.po would
>> close the door to fr_CA or whatever (even if there are little chances
>> that someone spend time for do these translations).
>> In many packages packages got such names.
>> In think we switched to such name after:
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=200861


> The latter two are indeed tricks as country modifiers should indeed be
> used, but this is a very well established practice now....and, before
> you ask, no this is not written in any policy document.
> Common sense may however be applied here : as long as you keep having
> a fr_FR translation, you depriving other french speaking users a good
> French translation. If, in the future, you feel for the need of
> variants, you can still keep a fr.po file and add fr_FR, fr_CA,
> whatever....which all have to be maintained.*

Good to know.
Ok, I'll make that change.

> Would you indeed imagine renaming the es.po file to es_ES.po and
>then revet your Latin American users to English. I guess you don't
>want this.
>> > Anyway, you'll find attached a new version of the translation
>> >file. I used there the usual translations used by the Debian french
>> >localisation team, which sometimes involves some rewrites (use of
>> >non-breaking spaces when appropriate, use of "superutilisateur",
>> >avoid using first person, s/bug/bogue and so on).
>> Well, I'm quite confident in my understanding of french typography
>> rules (in particular, I doubt someone would be able to catch
>> errouneous ponctuation in what I write in French - that's the kind of
>> mistakes I simply do not do, unlike grammar mistakes and alike).
> Well, then you probably want to check spaces before colons in the
> original fr_FR.po files..:-)

Seems ok to me:

moa@dionysos:~/projects/cvs.gna.org$ more pdbv/po/fr_FR.po  | grep msgstr | grep ":"
msgstr "Liste de paquets :"
msgstr "Paquet :"
msgstr "Version :"
msgstr "Section :"
msgstr "Priorité :"
msgstr "Essentiel :"
msgstr "État :"
msgstr "Date d'installation :"
msgstr "Dépend de :"
msgstr "En conflit avec :"
msgstr "Améliore :"
msgstr "Fournit :"
msgstr "Recommande :"
msgstr "Suggère :"
msgstr "Responsable :"
msgstr "Origine :"
msgstr "Source :"
msgstr "Site internet :"
msgstr "Description :"
msgstr "Taille :"
msgstr "Utilisation :"
msgstr "Fichiers :"
msgstr "Usage : pdbv [OPTIONS]"
( -> arg! usage != usage; I fixed that in the CVS but I'm now using
another computer than early in the morning and this one havent got the
CVS up to date)

>> If there's first person usage, I think a bug should be posted against
>> the whole package (unless this first person usage exists only in the
>> translation). Where did you find it?
> In the French translation : "nous ne pouvons obtenir des données
> valables" vs "we cannot find".
> Who is "we" ? :-)

Indeed I caught that later. But the mistake is in fact in the original
wording (english - I'm guilty too but that's not the point).

>> About bug, I do not really want to translate it "bogue" (ugly and
>> ununderstandable for a french, unless he guess from what he knows of
>> the similar english word - that clearly defeats translation purpose)
>> but anomalie. And there are already in debian packages that use this
>> translation (like pan).  
> Well, I'm afraid to say that Debian packages are not always consistent
> with regard to French translations......the only exception being the
> packages where translations are handleed by the maintainer and not the
> l10n team.
> The team work not only brings manpower : it also brings a guarantee
> for consistency all along localisation work, which strongly gives
> users a feeling of professionalism....this is why I would insist for
> "bogue" even if I happen to say "bug" quite often. 

My personal stance on translation is:
   a translation is no good if the translation is meaningless without
   understanding the original untranslated word.

Bogue cannot be understood without a little understanding of
"bug". Anomalie can. So bogue is a bad translation, anomalie is the
good one. The point of translation is to avoid people to learn another
language in order to use a software; providing translations that
cannot be understood without learning another language obvious defeat
this purpose.

The same goes for "mél" instead of "courriel", all these translations
are way more annoying than angliscisms.

I used to use bogue until it became obvious to me that anomalie was a
great replacement. And I wish that it would get more
common. But... I'm afraid it will probably not happen. For reasons
similar that most distros (debian apart!) use the word "paquetage" as
translation of package, which is plainly wrong according to all
sensible dictionnaires (deliberately excluding some dictionnaries from
Quebec that made as principle confusing popularity and legitimacy). 

> Anyway, my main intent here is motivating you, as maintainer, to get
> your own translation reviewed by the French team, even if you're a
> native french speaker. I'm not saying nor writing that your French is
> "wrong", far from this....but doing so would bring in some general
> consistency with other pieces of Debian (and quite often with other
> pieces of free software in general).

I'll try to sent it before releases.

> About "Internet" : my suggested change was guided by established
> practices from the Debian l10n-french team....after a lot of
> discussions. Not all team members agree completely with that but we
> indeed keep consistency.....so it's up to you, of course, like
> everything.

I want and I will make any change necessary for consistency, as long
as it does not contradict french established practices - that would be
a major consistency flaw.

But now I realize that maybe you wanted to capitalize only because you
treat it as a "nom propre". In that case, that would be indeed
acceptable according to french rules (unlike capitalizing several
common words just as installation in "Date d'installation"; I thought
it was this kind of change). Is that what you meant?


Mathieu Roy

  | General Homepage:           http://yeupou.coleumes.org/             |
  | Computing Homepage:         http://alberich.coleumes.org/           |
  | Not a native english speaker:                                       |
  |     http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english  |

Reply to: