Bug#1020248: [Git][dbnpolicy/policy][master] 2 commits: Use stanza to refer to deb822 parts instead of paragraph
Hi!
On Thu, 2022-09-22 at 14:26:38 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 06:08:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > I do find the use of paragraph the way we were previously using it to
> > be confusing, particularly given that the paragraphs contain fields
> > which in turn contain actual paragraphs in the normal sense of the
> > term.
Idem.
> > I don't want to keep using paragraph, but I'd be open to some other term
> > that Guillem was also open to (I think matching the terminology in dpkg is
> > very important). Section or block are commonly used for things like this,
> > but aren't very precise, so I'm not that enthused by them.
>
> In the spec, the word "paragraph" is only used in the specified context,
> so I always felt that there is no ambiguity. But of course, it can
> create opportunities for misunderstanding when discussing about the
> spec. So point taken about "paragraph", although interestingly, the
> Simple English definition of "paragraph" is quite spot on if one would
> replace "sentence" with "field": ”one or more sentences that are written
> together with no line breaks separating them. Usually they are
> connected by a single idea.” (<https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/paragraph>)
In the end nothing will match exactly, and we need to choose some
terminology. In this case, as previously mentioned, «stanza» has the
good properties of not usually applying to prose, being short, distinct
from the other terms and the less ambiguous of them all. It also makes
constructing sentences to describe things less cumbersome.
> I do not mind the word "section". It is the term used in the manual
> page "systemd.syntax" that describes systemd's unit files, which means
> that readers may be already familiar with the concept. One could argue
> that its definition in Simple English
> (<https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/section>, “A section of a thing or
> place is a part of it”) would allow a reader to think that a Field is
> also a section, but I feel it is unlikely to happen. This said, one big
> disadvantage of "section" is that when searching for this word in a
> document, there may be a lot of noisy hits such as "refer to section xyz
> for details".
The problems with section, is that as you mention is not very
searchable, but worse we already have a field with the same name!
> I understand about avoiding ambiguity, but in my opinion it is the price
> to pay to be able to translate information into simple words from
> English to non-European languages. Although the Policy itself is not
> going to be translated, I think that it can be advantageous if its
> contents can be discussed in simple words in people's native languages.
As a non-native speaker, and a translator, I agree having clear
wording in the original text is important, as otherwise that tends to
make translation work harder. But then, part of that work is to find
or create terminology, in many cases not existing yet in the
translated language, that might be suitable there, trying several terms
that might not necessarily be direct translations.
For a translation anecdote related to finding the right terms, when
triggers got introduced, and having to translate them to Catalan, we
initially used «gallets» (which would be the direct translation). But
when reading them that was bothering several of us as it sounded weird,
it could be read as “small roosters” («gall» being rooster, and «ets»
forming the plural diminutive), or being too close to «galets» which is
a type of pasta used for example in «sopa de galets» ("galets" soup). We
then switched to «activadors» which sounds way nicer, even though it's
not a direct translation. But if we had to translate the spec today,
that would be annoying as it uses «activating» all over the place, so
perhaps using «disparador» would be better. So, in the end this is a
process too, and terms can be changed if they are deemed confusing or
not helping convey the meaning. And in some others, you just need to
simply create new terminology, and describe what it means in specific
contexts.
For example for Catalan/Spanish «stanza» is simply «estrofa» which
seems like a nice term to use here.
Thanks,
Guillem
Reply to: