Just to make sure, We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other rule can be ignored.
0 : n==1 : singular form 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form 2 : n==2 : dual form
We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be correct.
(Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward compatibility)
Thanks, Niv
בתאריך 14 בספט׳ 2016 09:52, "ניב באר" bloop93@gmail.com כתב:
Thanks for the suggestion, take a quick look at the cardinal part, it
shows exactly what we're talking about so CLDR has this rule already :) I guess you are referring to the dual rule.. the rule for the many form there is incorrect[1] and should be fixed (at CLDR at least, we do not really need it for translations)
[1]http://hebrew-academy.org.il/topic/hahlatot/grammardecisions/terminology- ordinance/4-3-%d7%94%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a9-%d7%91% d7%a9%d7%9d-%d7%94%d7%9e%d7%a1%d7%a4%d7%a8/#target-3363 (it's in hebrew, sorry)
2016-09-14 9:37 GMT+03:00 Yaron Shahrabani sh.yaron@gmail.com:
Hi Yuri! Thanks for the suggestion, take a quick look at the cardinal part, it shows exactly what we're talking about so CLDR has this rule already :)
Yaron Shahrabani
<DevOps - Hebrew translator>
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Yuri Chornoivan yurchor@ukr.net wrote:
середа, 14-вер-2016 08:56:32 ניב באר написано:
Thank you, forth form isn't quiet correct
The actual hebrew plural forms are the following:
one object - use singular form
two objects - use dual form for specific cases, otherwise use plural
form
3-10 objects - use plural form
none or more than 10 objects - can use plural form or many form
(optional)
also, with both singular and dual form the number should not be written (anaconda, for example, does not aloow it).
generally, the many form isn't required but it could be nice to have
(and
prefered when speaking of years),
it is not widely use and we can do without him (using the regular plural form will sound natural as well).
In most cases, the existing plural form can be copied into the other
form
(or two).
I will also try to see if I can find a source in english who can
support it
(I could only find in hebrew and not all in one place).
I can review the translations on Zanata and I will try to contact hebrew translators of another projects
Thanks again, Niv
Hi,
Just 2 cents+
It is worth to inspect (and change if needed) the plural rules on CLDR.
http://www.unicode.org/cldr/charts/29/supplemental/language_ plural_rules.html#he
These rules are widely used in hardcoding the plural forms for many projects including FOSS.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Yuri
2016-09-14 2:41 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.co
m>:
13.09.2016 10:06 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, The plural form for hebrew is currently set as: nplurals=2; plural=(n != 1);
Altough plurals form fits in most cases, we do have dual form in hebrew which is mostly used when speaking
about
time[1].
which makes the use of plural form in those cases seems unnatural.
I would like to update hebrew plural form to be: nplurals=3; plural=(n==1) ? 0 : 1 + (n==2);
This formula looks tricky and I can't confirm it will always work as expected. Also it must be less obfuscated for other human readers.
I have grepped over the source code of those several projects from GNOME whose source code I apparently have on my computer and all of them use the simple nplurals=2 system in Hebrew
except GNOME Software [2] which uses this expression: nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2;
Our reference source should be CLDR [3] which mentions four forms for Hebrew:
- one (n==1);
- two (n==2);
- many: dividable by 10 except 10 itself (n%10==0 && n>10)
- other (including 0 and 10).
Can you confirm you need this fourth form for the numbers dividable by 10?
Otherwise, it seems you have spotted a bug in Hebrew language configuration. IMHO the plural rules for Hebrew should be changed to reflect all possible cases and you will have to live with the fact that in most cases two or three forms will be identical.
or at least to be able to specify a custom plural form to a
project on
Zanata.
I don't know if it's possible to change the plural rules for a single project but indeed it should be acceptable if the problem is so rare that it actually appears only in few projects. Otherwise it should be changed globally, for all projects in Zanata. Of course, it will break your existing translations so you will have to review them all. Sounds overwhelming but the satisfaction when you see all plural forms displayed correctly in your computer is priceless.
Also note that I know nothing about Hebrew language so I can't confirm what plural rules are correct and whether they should be applied globally or exceptionally for just few projects. I think these rules should be confirmed by other Hebrew speaking people and by references to some external and reliable sources like CLDR or ISO documents or a national language regulator.
Best regards,
Rafal
Thanks, Niv Baehr
#Modern_Hebrew
[2] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po [3] http://www.unicode.org/cldr/charts/29/supplemental/ language_plural_rules.html
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedoraproject.org
Ticket opened at CLDR[1]
[1]http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/9790
2016-09-14 14:30 GMT+03:00 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com:
Just to make sure, We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other rule can be ignored.
0 : n==1 : singular form 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form 2 : n==2 : dual form
We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be correct.
(Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward compatibility)
Thanks, Niv
בתאריך 14 בספט׳ 2016 09:52, "ניב באר" bloop93@gmail.com כתב:
Thanks for the suggestion, take a quick look at the cardinal part, it
shows exactly what we're talking about so CLDR has this rule already :) I guess you are referring to the dual rule.. the rule for the many form there is incorrect[1] and should be fixed (at CLDR at least, we do not really need it for translations)
[1]http://hebrew-academy.org.il/topic/hahlatot/grammardecisi ons/terminology-ordinance/4-3-%d7%94%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%9e%d7% 95%d7%a9-%d7%91%d7%a9%d7%9d-%d7%94%d7%9e%d7%a1%d7%a4%d7%a8/#target-3363 (it's in hebrew, sorry)
2016-09-14 9:37 GMT+03:00 Yaron Shahrabani sh.yaron@gmail.com:
Hi Yuri! Thanks for the suggestion, take a quick look at the cardinal part, it shows exactly what we're talking about so CLDR has this rule already :)
Yaron Shahrabani
<DevOps - Hebrew translator>
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Yuri Chornoivan yurchor@ukr.net wrote:
середа, 14-вер-2016 08:56:32 ניב באר написано:
Thank you, forth form isn't quiet correct
The actual hebrew plural forms are the following:
one object - use singular form
two objects - use dual form for specific cases, otherwise use plural
form
3-10 objects - use plural form
none or more than 10 objects - can use plural form or many form
(optional)
also, with both singular and dual form the number should not be written (anaconda, for example, does not aloow it).
generally, the many form isn't required but it could be nice to have
(and
prefered when speaking of years),
it is not widely use and we can do without him (using the regular
plural
form will sound natural as well).
In most cases, the existing plural form can be copied into the other
form
(or two).
I will also try to see if I can find a source in english who can
support it
(I could only find in hebrew and not all in one place).
I can review the translations on Zanata and I will try to contact
hebrew
translators of another projects
Thanks again, Niv
Hi,
Just 2 cents+
It is worth to inspect (and change if needed) the plural rules on CLDR.
http://www.unicode.org/cldr/charts/29/supplemental/language_ plural_rules.html#he
These rules are widely used in hardcoding the plural forms for many projects including FOSS.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Yuri
2016-09-14 2:41 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski <
digitalfreak@lingonborough.com>:
13.09.2016 10:06 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, The plural form for hebrew is currently set as: nplurals=2; plural=(n != 1);
Altough plurals form fits in most cases, we do have dual form in hebrew which is mostly used when speaking
about
time[1].
which makes the use of plural form in those cases seems unnatural.
I would like to update hebrew plural form to be: nplurals=3; plural=(n==1) ? 0 : 1 + (n==2);
This formula looks tricky and I can't confirm it will always work as expected. Also it must be less obfuscated for other human readers.
I have grepped over the source code of those several projects from GNOME whose source code I apparently have on my computer and all of them use the simple nplurals=2 system in Hebrew
except GNOME Software [2] which uses this expression: nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2;
Our reference source should be CLDR [3] which mentions four forms for Hebrew:
- one (n==1);
- two (n==2);
- many: dividable by 10 except 10 itself (n%10==0 && n>10)
- other (including 0 and 10).
Can you confirm you need this fourth form for the numbers dividable by 10?
Otherwise, it seems you have spotted a bug in Hebrew language configuration. IMHO the plural rules for Hebrew should be changed to reflect all possible cases and you will have to live with the fact that in most cases two or three forms will be identical.
or at least to be able to specify a custom plural form to a
project on
Zanata.
I don't know if it's possible to change the plural rules for a single project but indeed it should be acceptable if the problem is so rare that it actually appears only in few projects. Otherwise it should be changed globally, for all projects in Zanata. Of course, it will break your existing translations so you will have to review them all. Sounds overwhelming but the satisfaction when you see all plural forms displayed correctly in your computer is priceless.
Also note that I know nothing about Hebrew language so I can't confirm what plural rules are correct and whether they should be applied globally or exceptionally for just few projects. I think these rules should be confirmed by other Hebrew speaking people and by references to some external and reliable sources like CLDR or ISO documents or a national language regulator.
Best regards,
Rafal
Thanks, Niv Baehr
#Modern_Hebrew
[2] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po [3] http://www.unicode.org/cldr/charts/29/supplemental/ language_plural_rules.html
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedo raproject.org
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedoraproject.org
14.09.2016 13:30 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Just to make sure, We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other rule can be ignored.
0 : n==1 : singular form 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form 2 : n==2 : dual form
We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be correct.
(Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward compatibility)
Thanks, Niv
As for now it looks clear to me that Hebrew language needs at least the dual form to be added. Even if dual form usually will be the same as the plural we need a mechanism and leave it to the translators whether they use it in particular cases or not.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
* for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ... or * for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
As long as it's clear that dual number is necessary and it's not clear whether and when the "many" number is necessary I suggest adding the dual number rule and not adding the "many" number yet. As far as I understood, missing dual number is incorrect while missing "many" number is not.
Although previously I referred to this formula: [1]
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2;
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
For the record, here [2] is a formula for Hebrew according to what CLDR curently says:
nplurals=4; plural=(n == 1) ? 0 : ((n == 2) ? 1 : (((n < 0 || n > 10) && n % 10 == 0) ? 2 : 3))
Regards,
Rafal
[1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po [2] http://mlocati.github.io/cldr-to-gettext-plural-rules/
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
That's great, thank you.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities!
as using the regular plural form is correct (seem natural to the user*), it will only add unneeded extra complexity, so we'd prefer to leave it for now. meanwhile, projects who want can do it manipulating the .po file header (as GNOME Software did) for overall standard, we can always turn over the world again at later time :)
But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
the latter, for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... (n>10) but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks, Niv
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as "לפני 2 ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני יומיים" user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as "לפני 20 ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form "לפני 20 יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 2:19 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski digitalfreak@lingonborough.com:
14.09.2016 13:30 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Just to make sure, We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other rule can be ignored.
0 : n==1 : singular form 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form 2 : n==2 : dual form
We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be correct.
(Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward
compatibility)
Thanks, Niv
As for now it looks clear to me that Hebrew language needs at least the dual form to be added. Even if dual form usually will be the same as the plural we need a mechanism and leave it to the translators whether they use it in particular cases or not.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
As long as it's clear that dual number is necessary and it's not clear whether and when the "many" number is necessary I suggest adding the dual number rule and not adding the "many" number yet. As far as I understood, missing dual number is incorrect while missing "many" number is not.
Although previously I referred to this formula: [1]
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2;now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
For the record, here [2] is a formula for Hebrew according to what CLDR curently says:
nplurals=4; plural=(n == 1) ? 0 : ((n == 2) ? 1 : (((n < 0 || n > 10)&& n % 10 == 0) ? 2 : 3))
Regards,
Rafal
[1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po [2] http://mlocati.github.io/cldr-to-gettext-plural-rules/
(message was cut..)
but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks, Niv
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as "לפני 2 ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני יומיים" user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as "לפני 20 ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form "לפני 20 יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 12:12 GMT+03:00 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com:
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
That's great, thank you.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities!
as using the regular plural form is correct (seem natural to the user*), it will only add unneeded extra complexity, so we'd prefer to leave it for now. meanwhile, projects who want can do it manipulating the .po file header (as GNOME Software did) for overall standard, we can always turn over the world again at later time :)
But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
the latter, for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... (n>10) but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks, Niv
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as "לפני 2 ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני יומיים" user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as "לפני 20 ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form "לפני 20 יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 2:19 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski digitalfreak@lingonborough.com:
14.09.2016 13:30 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Just to make sure, We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other rule can be ignored.
0 : n==1 : singular form 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form 2 : n==2 : dual form
We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be correct.
(Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward
compatibility)
Thanks, Niv
As for now it looks clear to me that Hebrew language needs at least the dual form to be added. Even if dual form usually will be the same as the plural we need a mechanism and leave it to the translators whether they use it in particular cases or not.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
As long as it's clear that dual number is necessary and it's not clear whether and when the "many" number is necessary I suggest adding the dual number rule and not adding the "many" number yet. As far as I understood, missing dual number is incorrect while missing "many" number is not.
Although previously I referred to this formula: [1]
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2;now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
For the record, here [2] is a formula for Hebrew according to what CLDR curently says:
nplurals=4; plural=(n == 1) ? 0 : ((n == 2) ? 1 : (((n < 0 || n > 10)&& n % 10 == 0) ? 2 : 3))
Regards,
Rafal
[1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po [2] http://mlocati.github.io/cldr-to-gettext-plural-rules/
(last comment was not formatted correctly - here it is again)
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as "לפני 2 ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני יומיים"
user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as "לפני 20 ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form "לפני 20 יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 12:13 GMT+03:00 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com:
(message was cut..)
but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks, Niv
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as "לפני 2 ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני יומיים" user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as "לפני 20 ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form "לפני 20 יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 12:12 GMT+03:00 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com:
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
That's great, thank you.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities!
as using the regular plural form is correct (seem natural to the user*), it will only add unneeded extra complexity, so we'd prefer to leave it for now. meanwhile, projects who want can do it manipulating the .po file header (as GNOME Software did) for overall standard, we can always turn over the world again at later time :)
But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
the latter, for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... (n>10) but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks, Niv
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as "לפני 2 ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני יומיים" user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as "לפני 20 ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form "לפני 20 יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 2:19 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski digitalfreak@lingonborough.com:
14.09.2016 13:30 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Just to make sure, We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other rule can be ignored.
0 : n==1 : singular form 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form 2 : n==2 : dual form
We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be
correct.
(Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward
compatibility)
Thanks, Niv
As for now it looks clear to me that Hebrew language needs at least the dual form to be added. Even if dual form usually will be the same as the plural we need a mechanism and leave it to the translators whether they use it in particular cases or not.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
As long as it's clear that dual number is necessary and it's not clear whether and when the "many" number is necessary I suggest adding the dual number rule and not adding the "many" number yet. As far as I understood, missing dual number is incorrect while missing "many" number is not.
Although previously I referred to this formula: [1]
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2;now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
For the record, here [2] is a formula for Hebrew according to what CLDR curently says:
nplurals=4; plural=(n == 1) ? 0 : ((n == 2) ? 1 : (((n < 0 || n > 10)&& n % 10 == 0) ? 2 : 3))
Regards,
Rafal
[1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po [2] http://mlocati.github.io/cldr-to-gettext-plural-rules/
(please ignore my last 3 messages - I was just me having trouble sending this message - here is the complete message)
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
That's great, thank you.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities!
as using the regular plural form is correct (seem natural to the user*), it will only add unneeded extra complexity, so we'd prefer to leave it for now. meanwhile, projects who want can do it manipulating the .po file header (as GNOME Software did) for overall standard, we can always turn over the world again at later time :)
But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
the latter, for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... (n>10) but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks, Niv
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as "לפני 2 ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני יומיים"
user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as "לפני 20 ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form "לפני 20 יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 2:19 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski digitalfreak@lingonborough.com:
14.09.2016 13:30 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Just to make sure, We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other rule can be ignored.
0 : n==1 : singular form 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form 2 : n==2 : dual form
We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be correct.
(Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward
compatibility)
Thanks, Niv
As for now it looks clear to me that Hebrew language needs at least the dual form to be added. Even if dual form usually will be the same as the plural we need a mechanism and leave it to the translators whether they use it in particular cases or not.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
As long as it's clear that dual number is necessary and it's not clear whether and when the "many" number is necessary I suggest adding the dual number rule and not adding the "many" number yet. As far as I understood, missing dual number is incorrect while missing "many" number is not.
Although previously I referred to this formula: [1]
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2;now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
For the record, here [2] is a formula for Hebrew according to what CLDR curently says:
nplurals=4; plural=(n == 1) ? 0 : ((n == 2) ? 1 : (((n < 0 || n > 10)&& n % 10 == 0) ? 2 : 3))
Regards,
Rafal
[1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po [2] http://mlocati.github.io/cldr-to-gettext-plural-rules/
Thank you, Niv. For me it's clear that we should introduce the dual number in Hebrew globally and not introduce the "many" form. It will be introduced only if it turns out to be needed.
Please note that what I write here is just my kindly suggestion, not the decision. Can we ask the Zanata administrators and/or developers to introduce this change, please?
Regards,
Rafal
15.09.2016 11:23 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
(please ignore my last 3 messages - I was just me having trouble sending this message - here is the complete message)
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
That's great, thank you.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities!
as using the regular plural form is correct (seem natural to the user*), it will only add unneeded extra complexity, so we'd prefer to leave it for now. meanwhile, projects who want can do it manipulating the .po file header (as GNOME Software did) for overall standard, we can always turn over the world again at later time :)
But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
the latter, for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... (n>10) but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks, Niv
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as "לפני 2 ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני יומיים"
user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as "לפני 20 ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form "לפני 20 יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 2:19 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com mailto:digitalfreak@lingonborough.com >:
14.09.2016 13:30 ניב באר <bloop93@gmail.com mailto:bloop93@gmail.com > wrote:
Just to make sure, We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other rule can be ignored.
0 : n==1 : singular form 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form 2 : n==2 : dual form
We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be correct.
(Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward compatibility)
Thanks, Niv
As for now it looks clear to me that Hebrew language needs at least the dual form to be added. Even if dual form usually will be the same as the plural we need a mechanism and leave it to the translators whether they use it in particular cases or not.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
As long as it's clear that dual number is necessary and it's not clear whether and when the "many" number is necessary I suggest adding the dual number rule and not adding the "many" number yet. As far as I understood, missing dual number is incorrect while missing "many" number is not.
Although previously I referred to this formula: [1]
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2;now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
For the record, here [2] is a formula for Hebrew according to what CLDR curently says:
nplurals=4; plural=(n == 1) ? 0 : ((n == 2) ? 1 : (((n < 0 || n > 10)&& n % 10 == 0) ? 2 : 3))
Regards,
Rafal
[1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po [2] http://mlocati.github.io/cldr-to-gettext-plural-rules/
--
trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedoraproject.org
Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance.
Rafal
16.09.2016 01:17 Rafal Luzynski digitalfreak@lingonborough.com wrote:
Thank you, Niv. For me it's clear that we should introduce the dual number in Hebrew globally and not introduce the "many" form. It will be introduced only if it turns out to be needed.
Please note that what I write here is just my kindly suggestion, not the decision. Can we ask the Zanata administrators and/or developers to introduce this change, please?
Regards,
Rafal
15.09.2016 11:23 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
(please ignore my last 3 messages - I was just me having trouble sending this message - here is the complete message)
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
That's great, thank you.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities!
as using the regular plural form is correct (seem natural to the user*), it will only add unneeded extra complexity, so we'd prefer to leave it for now. meanwhile, projects who want can do it manipulating the .po file header (as GNOME Software did) for overall standard, we can always turn over the world again at later time :)
But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
the latter, for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... (n>10) but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks, Niv
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as "לפני 2 ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני יומיים"
user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as "לפני 20 ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form "לפני 20 יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 2:19 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com mailto:digitalfreak@lingonborough.com >:
14.09.2016 13:30 ניב באר <bloop93@gmail.com mailto:bloop93@gmail.com > wrote:
Just to make sure, We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other rule can be ignored.
0 : n==1 : singular form 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form 2 : n==2 : dual form
We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be correct.
(Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward compatibility)
Thanks, Niv
As for now it looks clear to me that Hebrew language needs at least the dual form to be added. Even if dual form usually will be the same as the plural we need a mechanism and leave it to the translators whether they use it in particular cases or not.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
As long as it's clear that dual number is necessary and it's not clear whether and when the "many" number is necessary I suggest adding the dual number rule and not adding the "many" number yet. As far as I understood, missing dual number is incorrect while missing "many" number is not.
Although previously I referred to this formula: [1]
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2;
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
For the record, here [2] is a formula for Hebrew according to what CLDR curently says:
nplurals=4; plural=(n == 1) ? 0 : ((n == 2) ? 1 : (((n < 0 || n > 10) && n % 10 == 0) ? 2 : 3))
Regards,
Rafal
[1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po [2] http://mlocati.github.io/cldr-to-gettext-plural-rules/
--
trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedoraproject.org
Or a bug? I think Bugzilla fits better for this.
Cheers, Sylvia
On 22 September 2016 at 11:33, Rafal Luzynski < digitalfreak@lingonborough.com> wrote:
Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance.
Rafal
16.09.2016 01:17 Rafal Luzynski digitalfreak@lingonborough.com wrote:
Thank you, Niv. For me it's clear that we should introduce the dual number in Hebrew globally and not introduce the "many" form. It will be introduced only if it turns out to be needed.
Please note that what I write here is just my kindly suggestion, not the decision. Can we ask the Zanata administrators and/or developers to introduce this change, please?
Regards,
Rafal
15.09.2016 11:23 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
(please ignore my last 3 messages - I was just me having trouble
sending
this message - here is the complete message)
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
That's great, thank you.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities!
as using the regular plural form is correct (seem natural to the
user*),
it will only add unneeded extra complexity, so we'd prefer to leave it for now. meanwhile, projects who want can do it manipulating the .po file header (as GNOME Software did) for overall standard, we can always turn over the world again at later time :)
But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
the latter, for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... (n>10) but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks, Niv
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as "לפני 2 ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני יומיים"
user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as "לפני
20
ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form
"לפני 20
יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 2:19 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.
com
mailto:digitalfreak@lingonborough.com >:
14.09.2016 13:30 ניב באר <bloop93@gmail.com mailto:
bloop93@gmail.com >
wrote:
Just to make sure, We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other rule
can
be ignored.
0 : n==1 : singular form 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form 2 : n==2 : dual form
We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be correct.
(Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward compatibility)
Thanks, Niv
As for now it looks clear to me that Hebrew language needs at least the dual form to be added. Even if dual form usually will be the same as the plural we need a mechanism and leave it to the
translators
whether they use it in particular cases or not.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
As long as it's clear that dual number is necessary and it's not clear whether and when the "many" number is necessary I suggest adding the dual number rule and not adding the "many" number yet. As far as I understood, missing dual number is incorrect while missing "many" number is not.
Although previously I referred to this formula: [1]
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2;
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
For the record, here [2] is a formula for Hebrew according to what CLDR curently says:
nplurals=4; plural=(n == 1) ? 0 : ((n == 2) ? 1 : (((n < 0 || n > 10) && n % 10 == 0) ? 2 : 3))
Regards,
Rafal
[1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po [2] http://mlocati.github.io/cldr-to-gettext-plural-rules/
--
trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.
fedoraproject.org
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.
fedoraproject.org _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Thank you Sylvia, Bug opened: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378576
problem is, it seems to be targeted at the Hebrew team coordinator, but I think an admin is needed for introducing this change)
Also, thank you again Rafal, much appreciated.
2016-09-22 20:33 GMT+03:00 Sylvia Sánchez lailahfsf@gmail.com:
Or a bug? I think Bugzilla fits better for this.
Cheers, Sylvia
On 22 September 2016 at 11:33, Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough. com> wrote:
Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance.
Rafal
16.09.2016 01:17 Rafal Luzynski digitalfreak@lingonborough.com wrote:
Thank you, Niv. For me it's clear that we should introduce the dual number in Hebrew globally and not introduce the "many" form. It will be introduced only if it turns out to be needed.
Please note that what I write here is just my kindly suggestion, not the decision. Can we ask the Zanata administrators and/or developers to introduce this change, please?
Regards,
Rafal
15.09.2016 11:23 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
(please ignore my last 3 messages - I was just me having trouble
sending
this message - here is the complete message)
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
That's great, thank you.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities!
as using the regular plural form is correct (seem natural to the
user*),
it will only add unneeded extra complexity, so we'd prefer to leave it for now. meanwhile, projects who want can do it manipulating the .po file header (as GNOME Software did) for overall standard, we can always turn over the world again at later time :)
But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
the latter, for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... (n>10) but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks, Niv
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as "לפני
2
ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני יומיים"
user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as "לפני
20
ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form
"לפני 20
יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 2:19 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski <
digitalfreak@lingonborough.com
mailto:digitalfreak@lingonborough.com >:
14.09.2016 13:30 ניב באר <bloop93@gmail.com mailto:
bloop93@gmail.com >
wrote:
Just to make sure, We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other rule
can
be ignored.
0 : n==1 : singular form 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form 2 : n==2 : dual form
We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be correct.
(Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward compatibility)
Thanks, Niv
As for now it looks clear to me that Hebrew language needs at least the dual form to be added. Even if dual form usually will be the same as the plural we need a mechanism and leave it to the
translators
whether they use it in particular cases or not.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
As long as it's clear that dual number is necessary and it's not clear whether and when the "many" number is necessary I suggest adding the dual number rule and not adding the "many" number yet. As far as I understood, missing dual number is incorrect while missing "many" number is not.
Although previously I referred to this formula: [1]
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2;
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
For the record, here [2] is a formula for Hebrew according to what CLDR curently says:
nplurals=4; plural=(n == 1) ? 0 : ((n == 2) ? 1 : (((n < 0 || n >
&& n % 10 == 0) ? 2 : 3))
Regards,
Rafal
[1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po [2] http://mlocati.github.io/cldr-to-gettext-plural-rules/
--
trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedo
raproject.org
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedo
raproject.org _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hi!
An admin... you mean someone from Infra? Or you mean someone like Noriko?
Cheers, Sylvia
On 22 September 2016 at 21:06, ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Sylvia, Bug opened: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378576
problem is, it seems to be targeted at the Hebrew team coordinator, but I think an admin is needed for introducing this change)
Also, thank you again Rafal, much appreciated.
2016-09-22 20:33 GMT+03:00 Sylvia Sánchez lailahfsf@gmail.com:
Or a bug? I think Bugzilla fits better for this.
Cheers, Sylvia
On 22 September 2016 at 11:33, Rafal Luzynski < digitalfreak@lingonborough.com> wrote:
Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance.
Rafal
16.09.2016 01:17 Rafal Luzynski digitalfreak@lingonborough.com wrote:
Thank you, Niv. For me it's clear that we should introduce the dual number in Hebrew globally and not introduce the "many" form. It will be introduced only if it turns out to be needed.
Please note that what I write here is just my kindly suggestion, not the decision. Can we ask the Zanata administrators and/or developers to introduce this change, please?
Regards,
Rafal
15.09.2016 11:23 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
(please ignore my last 3 messages - I was just me having trouble
sending
this message - here is the complete message)
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
That's great, thank you.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities!
as using the regular plural form is correct (seem natural to the
user*),
it will only add unneeded extra complexity, so we'd prefer to leave it for now. meanwhile, projects who want can do it manipulating the .po file header (as
GNOME
Software did) for overall standard, we can always turn over the world again at later time :)
But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
the latter, for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
(n>10)
but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks, Niv
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as
"לפני 2
ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני יומיים"
user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as
"לפני 20
ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form
"לפני 20
יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 2:19 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski <
digitalfreak@lingonborough.com
mailto:digitalfreak@lingonborough.com >:
> 14.09.2016 13:30 ניב באר <bloop93@gmail.com mailto:
bloop93@gmail.com >
> wrote: > > > Just to make sure, > We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other rule
can
> be > ignored. > > 0 : n==1 : singular form > 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form > 2 : n==2 : dual form > > We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be > correct. > > (Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward > compatibility) > > Thanks, > Niv
As for now it looks clear to me that Hebrew language needs at least the dual form to be added. Even if dual form usually will be the same as the plural we need a mechanism and leave it to the
translators
whether they use it in particular cases or not.
Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
- for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
or
- for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
As long as it's clear that dual number is necessary and it's not clear whether and when the "many" number is necessary I suggest adding the dual number rule and not adding the "many" number yet. As far as I understood, missing dual number is incorrect while missing "many" number is not.
Although previously I referred to this formula: [1]
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2;
now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
msgstr[0] "Singular form" msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" msgstr[2] "Dual form"
Can we have this formula for now?
For the record, here [2] is a formula for Hebrew according to what CLDR curently says:
nplurals=4; plural=(n == 1) ? 0 : ((n == 2) ? 1 : (((n < 0 || n >
&& n % 10 == 0) ? 2 : 3))
Regards,
Rafal
[1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po [2] http://mlocati.github.io/cldr-to-gettext-plural-rules/ > --
trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedo
raproject.org
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedo
raproject.org _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
An admin... you mean someone from Infra? Or you mean someone like
Noriko? don't know, actually... someone who is able to introduce changes on Zanata.
Thanks, Niv
2016-09-23 22:36 GMT+03:00 Sylvia Sánchez lailahfsf@gmail.com:
Hi!
An admin... you mean someone from Infra? Or you mean someone like Noriko?
Cheers, Sylvia
On 22 September 2016 at 21:06, ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Sylvia, Bug opened: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378576
problem is, it seems to be targeted at the Hebrew team coordinator, but I think an admin is needed for introducing this change)
Also, thank you again Rafal, much appreciated.
2016-09-22 20:33 GMT+03:00 Sylvia Sánchez lailahfsf@gmail.com:
Or a bug? I think Bugzilla fits better for this.
Cheers, Sylvia
On 22 September 2016 at 11:33, Rafal Luzynski < digitalfreak@lingonborough.com> wrote:
Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance.
Rafal
16.09.2016 01:17 Rafal Luzynski digitalfreak@lingonborough.com wrote:
Thank you, Niv. For me it's clear that we should introduce the dual number in Hebrew globally and not introduce the "many" form. It will be introduced only if it turns out to be needed.
Please note that what I write here is just my kindly suggestion, not the decision. Can we ask the Zanata administrators and/or developers to introduce this change, please?
Regards,
Rafal
15.09.2016 11:23 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
(please ignore my last 3 messages - I was just me having trouble
sending
this message - here is the complete message)
>now I'd suggest this one as more readable: > > nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1; > >Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want: > >msgstr[0] "Singular form" >msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" >msgstr[2] "Dual form" > >Can we have this formula for now?
That's great, thank you.
>Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. >You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would >be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, >using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities!
as using the regular plural form is correct (seem natural to the
user*),
it will only add unneeded extra complexity, so we'd prefer to leave it for now. meanwhile, projects who want can do it manipulating the .po file header (as
GNOME
Software did) for overall standard, we can always turn over the world again at later time :)
>But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be
used:
>* for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ... >or >* for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... the latter, for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
(n>10)
but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks, Niv
*user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as
"לפני 2
ימים" will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be
"לפני
יומיים"
user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as
"לפני 20
ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form
"לפני 20
יום" exists as well
2016-09-15 2:19 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski <
digitalfreak@lingonborough.com
mailto:digitalfreak@lingonborough.com >: > > 14.09.2016 13:30 ניב באר <bloop93@gmail.com mailto:
bloop93@gmail.com >
> > wrote: > > > > > > Just to make sure, > > We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other
rule can
> > be > > ignored. > > > > 0 : n==1 : singular form > > 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form > > 2 : n==2 : dual form > > > > We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be > > correct. > > > > (Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward > > compatibility) > > > > Thanks, > > Niv > > As for now it looks clear to me that Hebrew language needs at
least
> the dual form to be added. Even if dual form usually will be the > same as the plural we need a mechanism and leave it to the
translators
> whether they use it in particular cases or not. > > Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. > You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would > be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, > using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! But for > now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used: > > * for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ... > or > * for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... > > As long as it's clear that dual number is necessary and it's > not clear whether and when the "many" number is necessary > I suggest adding the dual number rule and not adding the "many" > number yet. As far as I understood, missing dual number is > incorrect while missing "many" number is not. > > Although previously I referred to this formula: [1] > > nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2; > > now I'd suggest this one as more readable: > > nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1; > > Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want: > > msgstr[0] "Singular form" > msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" > msgstr[2] "Dual form" > > Can we have this formula for now? > > For the record, here [2] is a formula for Hebrew according to > what CLDR curently says: > > nplurals=4; plural=(n == 1) ? 0 : ((n == 2) ? 1 : (((n < 0 || n >
> && n % > 10 == 0) ? 2 : 3)) > > Regards, > > Rafal > > > [1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po > [2] http://mlocati.github.io/cldr-to-gettext-plural-rules/ > > -- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedo
raproject.org
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedo
raproject.org _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Mmm... I think it should be Infra, but I'm not 100% sure
On 24 September 2016 at 19:20, ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
An admin... you mean someone from Infra? Or you mean someone like
Noriko? don't know, actually... someone who is able to introduce changes on Zanata.
Thanks, Niv
2016-09-23 22:36 GMT+03:00 Sylvia Sánchez lailahfsf@gmail.com:
Hi!
An admin... you mean someone from Infra? Or you mean someone like Noriko?
Cheers, Sylvia
On 22 September 2016 at 21:06, ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Sylvia, Bug opened: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378576
problem is, it seems to be targeted at the Hebrew team coordinator, but I think an admin is needed for introducing this change)
Also, thank you again Rafal, much appreciated.
2016-09-22 20:33 GMT+03:00 Sylvia Sánchez lailahfsf@gmail.com:
Or a bug? I think Bugzilla fits better for this.
Cheers, Sylvia
On 22 September 2016 at 11:33, Rafal Luzynski < digitalfreak@lingonborough.com> wrote:
Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance.
Rafal
16.09.2016 01:17 Rafal Luzynski digitalfreak@lingonborough.com wrote:
Thank you, Niv. For me it's clear that we should introduce the dual number in Hebrew globally and not introduce the "many" form. It will be introduced only if it turns out to be needed.
Please note that what I write here is just my kindly suggestion, not the decision. Can we ask the Zanata administrators and/or developers to introduce this change, please?
Regards,
Rafal
15.09.2016 11:23 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote: > > (please ignore my last 3 messages - I was just me having trouble
sending
> this > message - here is the complete message) > > >now I'd suggest this one as more readable: > > > > nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1; > > > >Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want: > > > >msgstr[0] "Singular form" > >msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" > >msgstr[2] "Dual form" > > > >Can we have this formula for now? > > That's great, thank you. > > >Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. > >You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would > >be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, > >using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! > > as using the regular plural form is correct (seem natural to the
user*),
> it will only add unneeded extra complexity, > so we'd prefer to leave it for now. > meanwhile, > projects who want can do it manipulating the .po file header (as
GNOME
> Software did) > for overall standard, > we can always turn over the world again at later time :) > > >But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be
used:
> >* for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ... > >or > >* for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... > the latter, for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
(n>10)
> but again, using the regular plural form is correct*. > > Thanks, > Niv > > *user reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as
"לפני 2
> ימים" > will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be
"לפני
> יומיים" > > user reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as
"לפני 20
> ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form
"לפני 20
> יום" exists as well > > 2016-09-15 2:19 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski <
digitalfreak@lingonborough.com
> mailto:digitalfreak@lingonborough.com >: > > > 14.09.2016 13:30 ניב באר <bloop93@gmail.com mailto:
bloop93@gmail.com >
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Just to make sure, > > > We are requesting to add the rule for dual form.. the other
rule can
> > > be > > > ignored. > > > > > > 0 : n==1 : singular form > > > 1 : n==0||n >2 :plural form > > > 2 : n==2 : dual form > > > > > > We do not actually need the many form for the translation to be > > > correct. > > > > > > (Assuming putting dual form on 2 can mainyain some bacward > > > compatibility) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Niv > > > > As for now it looks clear to me that Hebrew language needs at
least
> > the dual form to be added. Even if dual form usually will be the > > same as the plural we need a mechanism and leave it to the
translators
> > whether they use it in particular cases or not. > > > > Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form. > > You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would > > be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice, > > using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities! But for > > now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used: > > > > * for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ... > > or > > * for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... > > > > As long as it's clear that dual number is necessary and it's > > not clear whether and when the "many" number is necessary > > I suggest adding the dual number rule and not adding the "many" > > number yet. As far as I understood, missing dual number is > > incorrect while missing "many" number is not. > > > > Although previously I referred to this formula: [1] > > > > nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : (n>2||n==0) ? 1 : 2; > > > > now I'd suggest this one as more readable: > > > > nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1; > > > > Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want: > > > > msgstr[0] "Singular form" > > msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)" > > msgstr[2] "Dual form" > > > > Can we have this formula for now? > > > > For the record, here [2] is a formula for Hebrew according to > > what CLDR curently says: > > > > nplurals=4; plural=(n == 1) ? 0 : ((n == 2) ? 1 : (((n < 0 || n 10) > > && n % > > 10 == 0) ? 2 : 3)) > > > > Regards, > > > > Rafal > > > > > > [1] https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/tree/po/he.po > > [2] http://mlocati.github.io/cldr-to-gettext-plural-rules/ > > > -- > trans mailing list > trans@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedo
raproject.org
>
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/trans@lists.fedo
raproject.org _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
2016-09-22 11:33 GMT+02:00 Rafal Luzynski digitalfreak@lingonborough.com:
Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance.
I changed it on https://fedora.zanata.org. It might be a good idea to talk to upstreams (GNOME, KDE, etc.) about changing it there as well.
Best regards,
Thank you, reviewing now..
2016-09-24 22:28 GMT+03:00 Piotr Drąg piotrdrag@gmail.com:
2016-09-22 11:33 GMT+02:00 Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com
: Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance.
I changed it on https://fedora.zanata.org. It might be a good idea to talk to upstreams (GNOME, KDE, etc.) about changing it there as well.
Best regards,
-- Piotr Drąg https://piotrdrag.fedorapeople.org _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hey guys? Is this a global change? For all projects?
On Sep 25, 2016 12:05 AM, "ניב באר" bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, reviewing now..
2016-09-24 22:28 GMT+03:00 Piotr Drąg piotrdrag@gmail.com:
2016-09-22 11:33 GMT+02:00 Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com
: Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance.
I changed it on https://fedora.zanata.org. It might be a good idea to talk to upstreams (GNOME, KDE, etc.) about changing it there as well.
Best regards,
-- Piotr Drąg https://piotrdrag.fedorapeople.org _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
No, I think it's for Hebrew language only.
Cheers, Sylvia
On 25 September 2016 at 07:01, Yaron Shahrabani sh.yaron@gmail.com wrote:
Hey guys? Is this a global change? For all projects?
On Sep 25, 2016 12:05 AM, "ניב באר" bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, reviewing now..
2016-09-24 22:28 GMT+03:00 Piotr Drąg piotrdrag@gmail.com:
2016-09-22 11:33 GMT+02:00 Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.co m>:
Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance.
I changed it on https://fedora.zanata.org. It might be a good idea to talk to upstreams (GNOME, KDE, etc.) about changing it there as well.
Best regards,
-- Piotr Drąg https://piotrdrag.fedorapeople.org _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
I didn't mean for all languages but for all projects translated to Hebrew, I'm not sure we can handle so much work without communicating and getting the Hebrew community agreement thus applying the rules to the different projects and translators.
Yaron Shahrabani
<DevOps - Hebrew translator>
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Sylvia Sánchez lailahfsf@gmail.com wrote:
No, I think it's for Hebrew language only.
Cheers, Sylvia
On 25 September 2016 at 07:01, Yaron Shahrabani sh.yaron@gmail.com wrote:
Hey guys? Is this a global change? For all projects?
On Sep 25, 2016 12:05 AM, "ניב באר" bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, reviewing now..
2016-09-24 22:28 GMT+03:00 Piotr Drąg piotrdrag@gmail.com:
2016-09-22 11:33 GMT+02:00 Rafal Luzynski < digitalfreak@lingonborough.com>:
Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance.
I changed it on https://fedora.zanata.org. It might be a good idea to talk to upstreams (GNOME, KDE, etc.) about changing it there as well.
Best regards,
-- Piotr Drąg https://piotrdrag.fedorapeople.org _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, I agree with you,
Cheers, Sylvia
On 25 September 2016 at 08:41, Yaron Shahrabani sh.yaron@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't mean for all languages but for all projects translated to Hebrew, I'm not sure we can handle so much work without communicating and getting the Hebrew community agreement thus applying the rules to the different projects and translators.
Yaron Shahrabani
<DevOps - Hebrew translator>
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Sylvia Sánchez lailahfsf@gmail.com wrote:
No, I think it's for Hebrew language only.
Cheers, Sylvia
On 25 September 2016 at 07:01, Yaron Shahrabani sh.yaron@gmail.com wrote:
Hey guys? Is this a global change? For all projects?
On Sep 25, 2016 12:05 AM, "ניב באר" bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, reviewing now..
2016-09-24 22:28 GMT+03:00 Piotr Drąg piotrdrag@gmail.com:
2016-09-22 11:33 GMT+02:00 Rafal Luzynski < digitalfreak@lingonborough.com>:
Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally:
nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance.
I changed it on https://fedora.zanata.org. It might be a good idea to talk to upstreams (GNOME, KDE, etc.) about changing it there as well.
Best regards,
-- Piotr Drąg https://piotrdrag.fedorapeople.org _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hey guys? Is this a global change? For all projects?
I think it will only affect projects which are not yet translated (at all)... because translated project already have the gettext header with the previous plural form definition.
Can someone please verify?
Niv בתאריך 25 בספט׳ 2016 10:15, "Sylvia Sánchez" lailahfsf@gmail.com כתב:
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, I agree with you,
Cheers, Sylvia
On 25 September 2016 at 08:41, Yaron Shahrabani sh.yaron@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't mean for all languages but for all projects translated to Hebrew, I'm not sure we can handle so much work without communicating and getting the Hebrew community agreement thus applying the rules to the different projects and translators.
Yaron Shahrabani
<DevOps - Hebrew translator>
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Sylvia Sánchez lailahfsf@gmail.com wrote:
No, I think it's for Hebrew language only.
Cheers, Sylvia
On 25 September 2016 at 07:01, Yaron Shahrabani sh.yaron@gmail.com wrote:
Hey guys? Is this a global change? For all projects?
On Sep 25, 2016 12:05 AM, "ניב באר" bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, reviewing now..
2016-09-24 22:28 GMT+03:00 Piotr Drąg piotrdrag@gmail.com:
2016-09-22 11:33 GMT+02:00 Rafal Luzynski < digitalfreak@lingonborough.com>: > Ping! Can we have this change introduced, please? For the reminder, > a formula like this is needed for Hebrew language globally: > > nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1; > > Should a ticket be filed somewhere? Thank you in advance. >
I changed it on https://fedora.zanata.org. It might be a good idea to talk to upstreams (GNOME, KDE, etc.) about changing it there as well.
Best regards,
-- Piotr Drąg https://piotrdrag.fedorapeople.org _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
25.09.2016 14:57 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
[...] I think it will only affect projects which are not yet translated (at all)... because translated project already have the gettext header with the previous plural form definition.
Can someone please verify?
Niv
I confirm that when viewing he.po (via the web interface or via zanata-cli client) I can see 3 entries for each string containing plurals (singular, plural, double) which is correct but the header still says: "Plural-Forms: nplurals=2; plural=(n != 1);\n". gettext package will probably get confused, zanata-cli already said:
[WARN] Marking as fuzzy: too many plural forms for text flow: resId=a91ffc0ca31f741b94db01803907073c, doc=gnome-abrt
(repeated 3 times with different resId).
Looks like it is possible to input plurals correctly but all the headers need to be fixed.
So, guys, can we please have all headers fixed, globally, for Hebrew language for all projects, both future and already existing? Or should it be done manually by translators?
Also from another email:
On 25 September 2016 at 08:41, Yaron Shahrabani <sh.yaron@gmail.com mailto:sh.yaron@gmail.com > wrote:
I didn't mean for all languages but for all projects translated toHebrew, I'm not sure we can handle so much work without communicating and getting the Hebrew community agreement thus applying the rules to the different projects and translators.
Yaron Shahrabani
I think that Niv has already volunteered to browse *all* projects in Zanata and fix *all* plurals which need it. About 120 projects, fortunately not all already translated - is it OK, Niv?
Best regards,
Rafal
in order to not break anything I prefer to fix the header manually after I review a project. I have meanwhile managed to do it in gnome-abrt, but other projects are seem to reject the uploaded file
documents that were created after the change have the right header
בתאריך 28 בספט׳ 2016 00:35, "Rafal Luzynski" < digitalfreak@lingonborough.com> כתב:
25.09.2016 14:57 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
[...] I think it will only affect projects which are not yet translated (at
all)...
because translated project already have the gettext header with the
previous
plural form definition.
Can someone please verify?
Niv
I confirm that when viewing he.po (via the web interface or via zanata-cli client) I can see 3 entries for each string containing plurals (singular, plural, double) which is correct but the header still says: "Plural-Forms: nplurals=2; plural=(n != 1);\n". gettext package will probably get confused, zanata-cli already said:
[WARN] Marking as fuzzy: too many plural forms for text flow: resId=a91ffc0ca31f741b94db01803907073c, doc=gnome-abrt
(repeated 3 times with different resId).
Looks like it is possible to input plurals correctly but all the headers need to be fixed.
So, guys, can we please have all headers fixed, globally, for Hebrew language for all projects, both future and already existing? Or should it be done manually by translators?
Also from another email:
On 25 September 2016 at 08:41, Yaron Shahrabani <sh.yaron@gmail.com mailto:sh.yaron@gmail.com > wrote:
I didn't mean for all languages but for all projects translated toHebrew, I'm not sure we can handle so much work without communicating and getting the Hebrew community agreement thus applying the rules to the different projects and translators.
Yaron ShahrabaniI think that Niv has already volunteered to browse *all* projects in Zanata and fix *all* plurals which need it. About 120 projects, fortunately not all already translated - is it OK, Niv?
Best regards,
Rafal _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
my mistake, it was rejected in gnome-abrt as well
2016-09-28 7:57 GMT+03:00 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com:
in order to not break anything I prefer to fix the header manually after I review a project. I have meanwhile managed to do it in gnome-abrt, but other projects are seem to reject the uploaded file
documents that were created after the change have the right header
בתאריך 28 בספט׳ 2016 00:35, "Rafal Luzynski" <digitalfreak@lingonborough. com> כתב:
25.09.2016 14:57 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
[...] I think it will only affect projects which are not yet translated (at
all)...
because translated project already have the gettext header with the
previous
plural form definition.
Can someone please verify?
Niv
I confirm that when viewing he.po (via the web interface or via zanata-cli client) I can see 3 entries for each string containing plurals (singular, plural, double) which is correct but the header still says: "Plural-Forms: nplurals=2; plural=(n != 1);\n". gettext package will probably get confused, zanata-cli already said:
[WARN] Marking as fuzzy: too many plural forms for text flow: resId=a91ffc0ca31f741b94db01803907073c, doc=gnome-abrt
(repeated 3 times with different resId).
Looks like it is possible to input plurals correctly but all the headers need to be fixed.
So, guys, can we please have all headers fixed, globally, for Hebrew language for all projects, both future and already existing? Or should it be done manually by translators?
Also from another email:
On 25 September 2016 at 08:41, Yaron Shahrabani <sh.yaron@gmail.com mailto:sh.yaron@gmail.com > wrote:
I didn't mean for all languages but for all projects translated toHebrew, I'm not sure we can handle so much work without communicating
and
getting the Hebrew community agreement thus applying the rules to the different projects and translators.
Yaron ShahrabaniI think that Niv has already volunteered to browse *all* projects in Zanata and fix *all* plurals which need it. About 120 projects, fortunately not all already translated - is it OK, Niv?
Best regards,
Rafal _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Changing manually upon selection would be easier and faster since many projects will still look quite native without this change.
Yaron Shahrabani
<DevOps - Hebrew translator>
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 8:50 AM, ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
my mistake, it was rejected in gnome-abrt as well
2016-09-28 7:57 GMT+03:00 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com:
in order to not break anything I prefer to fix the header manually after I review a project. I have meanwhile managed to do it in gnome-abrt, but other projects are seem to reject the uploaded file
documents that were created after the change have the right header
בתאריך 28 בספט׳ 2016 00:35, "Rafal Luzynski" < digitalfreak@lingonborough.com> כתב:
25.09.2016 14:57 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
[...] I think it will only affect projects which are not yet translated (at
all)...
because translated project already have the gettext header with the
previous
plural form definition.
Can someone please verify?
Niv
I confirm that when viewing he.po (via the web interface or via zanata-cli client) I can see 3 entries for each string containing plurals (singular, plural, double) which is correct but the header still says: "Plural-Forms: nplurals=2; plural=(n != 1);\n". gettext package will probably get confused, zanata-cli already said:
[WARN] Marking as fuzzy: too many plural forms for text flow: resId=a91ffc0ca31f741b94db01803907073c, doc=gnome-abrt
(repeated 3 times with different resId).
Looks like it is possible to input plurals correctly but all the headers need to be fixed.
So, guys, can we please have all headers fixed, globally, for Hebrew language for all projects, both future and already existing? Or should it be done manually by translators?
Also from another email:
On 25 September 2016 at 08:41, Yaron Shahrabani <sh.yaron@gmail.com mailto:sh.yaron@gmail.com > wrote:
I didn't mean for all languages but for all projects translatedto
Hebrew, I'm not sure we can handle so much work without communicating
and
getting the Hebrew community agreement thus applying the rules to the different projects and translators.
Yaron ShahrabaniI think that Niv has already volunteered to browse *all* projects in Zanata and fix *all* plurals which need it. About 120 projects, fortunately not all already translated - is it OK, Niv?
Best regards,
Rafal _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
update: it seems updating the .po header is possible when uploading through cli, but only for project with only one document. project with multiple documents have them overriding each other
2016-09-28 9:42 GMT+03:00 Yaron Shahrabani sh.yaron@gmail.com:
Changing manually upon selection would be easier and faster since many projects will still look quite native without this change.
Yaron Shahrabani
<DevOps - Hebrew translator>
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 8:50 AM, ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
my mistake, it was rejected in gnome-abrt as well
2016-09-28 7:57 GMT+03:00 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com:
in order to not break anything I prefer to fix the header manually after I review a project. I have meanwhile managed to do it in gnome-abrt, but other projects are seem to reject the uploaded file
documents that were created after the change have the right header
בתאריך 28 בספט׳ 2016 00:35, "Rafal Luzynski" < digitalfreak@lingonborough.com> כתב:
25.09.2016 14:57 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
[...] I think it will only affect projects which are not yet translated
(at all)...
because translated project already have the gettext header with the
previous
plural form definition.
Can someone please verify?
Niv
I confirm that when viewing he.po (via the web interface or via zanata-cli client) I can see 3 entries for each string containing plurals (singular, plural, double) which is correct but the header still says: "Plural-Forms: nplurals=2; plural=(n != 1);\n". gettext package will probably get confused, zanata-cli already said:
[WARN] Marking as fuzzy: too many plural forms for text flow: resId=a91ffc0ca31f741b94db01803907073c, doc=gnome-abrt
(repeated 3 times with different resId).
Looks like it is possible to input plurals correctly but all the headers need to be fixed.
So, guys, can we please have all headers fixed, globally, for Hebrew language for all projects, both future and already existing? Or should it be done manually by translators?
Also from another email:
On 25 September 2016 at 08:41, Yaron Shahrabani <sh.yaron@gmail.com mailto:sh.yaron@gmail.com > wrote:
I didn't mean for all languages but for all projects translatedto
Hebrew, I'm not sure we can handle so much work without communicating
and
getting the Hebrew community agreement thus applying the rules to the different projects and translators.
Yaron ShahrabaniI think that Niv has already volunteered to browse *all* projects in Zanata and fix *all* plurals which need it. About 120 projects, fortunately not all already translated - is it OK, Niv?
Best regards,
Rafal _______________________________________________ trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
trans mailing list -- trans@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to trans-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hi,
29.09.2016 20:53 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
update: it seems updating the .po header is possible when uploading through cli, but only for project with only one document. project with multiple documents have them overriding each other
Guys, what is the current status of this issue? Have you managed to fix plural rules for Hebrew in all projects in Zanata, or at least in all projects you wanted to be fixed? Do you need more assistance?
Regards,
Rafal
Hello and sorry for the late response,
gnome-abrt got its header fixed (through cli client), so plural forms and translation are good there. currently, the only other* project which I've found need fixing is anaconda (only for consistency, the dual form in all strings is exactly the same as the plural form, and should be), but I haven't been able to fix its header because it has multiple documents in each branch (and they're overriding each other).
I haven't yet found other translated** projects making use of plural forms.. but I'll keep searching.
Many thanks,
Niv
* completely tui utilities should probably not get translated in hebrew (dnf, for example, also make use of plural forms) - only strings appearing in gui should ** projects which (will be) translated after header replacements (will) have good header.
2016-10-14 1:34 GMT+03:00 Rafal Luzynski digitalfreak@lingonborough.com:
Hi,
29.09.2016 20:53 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
update: it seems updating the .po header is possible when uploading
through
cli, but only for project with only one document. project with multiple documents have them overriding each other
Guys, what is the current status of this issue? Have you managed to fix plural rules for Hebrew in all projects in Zanata, or at least in all projects you wanted to be fixed? Do you need more assistance?
Regards,
Rafal
Hi,
17.10.2016 18:55 ניב באר bloop93@gmail.com wrote:
Hello and sorry for the late response,
gnome-abrt got its header fixed (through cli client), so plural forms and translation are good there. currently, the only other* project which I've found need fixing is anaconda (only for consistency, the dual form in all strings is exactly the same as the plural form, and should be), but I haven't been able to fix its header because it has multiple documents in each branch (and they're overriding each other).
So I think we can treat this issue as solved since the plurals are now correct in all projects you wanted them to be corrected and in the projects they can't be fixed they are also not used.
[...]
- completely tui utilities should probably not get translated in hebrew (dnf,
for example, also make use of plural forms) - only strings appearing in gui should
That's of course your choice what you translate and what you don't and I appreciate every single translation but personally I can't see a reason why TUI utilities should not be translated.
Thank you for all your efforts,
Rafal
-
Piotr Drąg -
Rafal Luzynski -
Sylvia Sánchez -
Yaron Shahrabani -
ניב באר