Hi Christian, On 2012-08-15 02:21, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Quoting Filipus Klutiero (chealer@gmail.com):Package: www.debian.org Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-l10n-french@lists.debian.org http://www.debian.org/ports/index.en.html contains:The Linux kernel has now been ported to a large, and growing, list of architectures. Following close behind, we have ported the Debian distribution to these architectures.The French translation is:Le noyau Linux est porté sur un nombre croissant d'architectures. Et la distribution Debian est portée en conséquence vers toutes ces architectures.This is incorrect. While the English version may be ambiguous, it does not claim that Debian is ported to all Linux architectures. It means Debian is ported to *some* Linux architectures.Both claim about the same thing. The French version is a little be more affirmative (using "toutes") but that's mostly because the original version is already ambiguous.
It's not a matter of how affirmative the statement is. The reality is that Debian is ported to some Linux architectures, but not all. The French version claims it is ported to all Linux architectures, which is incorrect. The English version is ambiguous, the only thing it says for sure is that Debian was ported to some Linux architectures, which is not wrong.
Note that the English version does not say the porting of Debian isIt does: "following close behind". That sounds as a way to say "as a consequence"
But it's not. "Following" says Debian was ported after Linux was ported. "en conséquence" says that Debian's porting was simply a result of Linux's porting. The Afghan war started after Debian 1.1 was released. Nevertheless, it's not true that the Afghan war is a consequence of Debian 1.1's release.
a consequence of Linux's porting. Also, the French version doesn't say the list of Linux architectures is large."nombre croissant" implicitly says "large".
Not any more than a growing list of architectures is necessarily a large list of architectures.
Translation is about interpretation, not literal translation. So, in short, the original version might be worded differently, but the translation is not "wrong" per se.
The translation above is indeed not incorrect, it is simply incomplete.