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

Re: New version of nm-step2

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 04:44:57AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > This would be better alone, but doesn't fit with the rest of the
> > sentence:
> > 
> > "As a last resort, if you don't receive any offers for a few weeks
> > after registering, you can send e-mail to"
> > 
> > Here, "don't receive any offers for a few weeks" would imply that
> > after a few weeks, you *do* receive some offers.
> > 
> > I'd go with "haven't received". Inevitably, then the sentence doesn't
> > flow very well, so we shuffle it around a bit like this (and fix
> > another bug in the parenthesised expression at the end):
> > 
> > "A few weeks after registering, if you still haven't received any
> > offers, then you can send e-mail to <email gpg-coord@nm.debian.org>
> > telling them precisely where you live (give the names of some big
> > cities close to you)."
> When ever there is a complex explanation for a simple thing like this,
> we should look into the logic structure of the whole process before
> tweaking wordings of each to make it look good and smooth.

Well, it's not all that complicated - I ran through in a page or three
what would usually take about half a second, for the sake of
example. The paragraph does kinda suck, though.

> Let's get this simplified.
> There are few approaches to get one's GPG key signed.
>   1.  Passive action by looking for GPG signing party information.  If
>       found one you can attend, go there to get GPG key signed.
>   2.  Active search for willing victims (GPG coordination page). Contact
>       by mail.
>   3.  Brute search for victims by location such as coordinate or city name.
>       ...
>   4.  Think other creative but quiet ways and try them. ...
>   5.  Cry out loud to mailing list (after checking with AM).
>   6.  Discuss with NM-front desk for alternatives.
> I think "How to get your GPG key signed" should consists of <ol> of
> above items with nicely styled English words with much detailed
> explanation(s).  I do not like current logic structure which uses
> paragraphs and <ul> in a mixed way.
> I think that the less we rely on subtle wordings, the more accurate we
> get across all translated forms.

Same idea occurred to me. I was half-inclined to rewrite it like this,
but couldn't be bothered; I just don't care *that* much.

As for accuracy across translations, I'm not sure it's
feasible. Admittedly English <-> Japanese is a pathological case, but
it does form a good example of just how fiendishly difficult accurate
translation can be (unless you give in and expand every sentence to an
explanatory paragraph - which isn't the desired result).

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: pgpPAD8P8LE5H.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: