© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
a60fb26
(Get the code!)
> I also checked a Gnome and a Debian package, as these are wide-spread open source projects, and both also use the single plural form:
Practically everyone other than CLDR and MediaWiki originally based their plural rules on gettext. As far as I can tell, this whole misunderstanding stems from a single commit in 2005:
<https:/
I’ll reach out to Clytie for confirmation.
> I have seen your report at the unicode issue tracker ( https:/
CLDR’s maintainers agree with my proposal and consider the proposed change to be a release blocker. However, they also consider it to be blocked by a new feature that would explicitly indicate whether a noun phrase (“1 meter”, “3 meters”) needs to vary by number, or whether grammatical number only affects other parts of the sentence, like demonstratives in Vietnamese. <https:/
> The given example is not really convincing since the zero sentence shouldn't exist at all as the button should be disabled when there is no update and the description should be reflective of that.
That’s fair, it is a pretty contrived example. It’s hard to come up with an uncontrived example, which is probably a point in favor of going ahead with the proposed change.
The zero behavior is something of a moot point for CLDR, because the project advises implementations to let translators optionally customize the zero message even if the language has an n=1 plural rule. MediaWiki/
> Regarding the Unicode ticket, I think it should be emphasized that excessive use of pronouns and counting markers sounds unnatural in many cases.
Yes, as a translator, I take every opportunity to omit pronouns and counting markers. But sometimes a UI design gives me no choice: when a user is about to delete multiple files, triggering a confirmation dialog, I want the user to realize, as in English, that clicking the confirmation button will have the destructive effect of deleting multiple files:
* “Xóa” would lose this emphasis.
* “Xóa tập tin” would be potentially misleading.
* “Xóa các tập tin” would be ideal.
* “Xóa (các) tập tin” would be stilted (and alarmist when deleting only one file).
In the zero case, which would disable this button, any of these translations would be plausible.
> Translators should be encouraged to come up with good sentences instead of mapping words literally.
Totally agree, but this presupposes that software structures messages flexibly and allows for sufficient plural forms. One step at a time. It’s enough work as it is to counter the misconception that CJKV languages pluralize identically.