Re: Bug#851508: Russian translation for apt-listbugs/ru.po
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Francesco Poli
<invernomuto@paranoici.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 08:07:01 +0300 Sergey Alyoshin wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Francesco Poli
>> <invernomuto@paranoici.org> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:22:18 +0300 Sergey Alyoshin wrote:
>> >
>> >> Package: apt-listbugs
>> >> Version: 0.1.22
>> >> Priority: wishlist
>> >> Tags: l10n
>> >
>> > Hello Sergey,
>> > thanks for sending me a new translation!
>> > I'll take a look at it very soon (hopefully).
>>
>>
>> Thanks for quick reply and you work.
>
> I have a couple of questions.
>
> First of all:
>
> "Plural-Forms: nplurals=4; plural=(n%10==1 && n%100!=11 ? 0 : n%10>=2 && n"
> "%10<=4 && (n%100<12 || n%100>14) ? 1 : n%10==0 || (n%10>=5 && n%10<=9) || (n"
> "%100>=11 && n%100<=14)? 2 : 3);\n"
>
> Is this the correct plural rule for the Russian language?
> According to
> https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/Plural-forms.html
> it should be
>
> "Plural-Forms: nplurals=3;"
> "plural=n%10==1 && n%100!=11 ? 0 :"
> "n%10>=2 && n%10<=4 && (n%100<10 || n%100>=20) ? 1 : 2;\n"
>
> And this is indeed the plural rule that you seem to have used in your
> translation for postfix debconf templates (see bug #851489).
>
> Could you please clarify why you used a different rule for the
> apt-listbugs translation?
Transifex is using nplurals=4 for Russian, and this is conform to
http://www.unicode.org/cldr/charts/latest/supplemental/language_plural_rules.html#ru
But as plural form 4 is for floating point numbers, I can change it to
nplurals=3.
> Secondly:
>
> #: ../lib/aptlistbugs/logic.rb:83
> msgid "Outstanding"
> msgstr "Исключительных"
>
> Please note that, here, "Outstanding" means "unresolved", not
> "exceptional"...
> Is the above translation correct? Or should another Russian word be
> used?
>
In such case it will be "нерешённые" (ошибки).
> Please note that, although I studied a little bit of Russian in the
> past, my knowledge has never been too detailed and my memories are
> definitely rusty now... Hence I may well be completely off-track.
Reply to: