Steve Bertrand wrote:
> PJ wrote:
>   
>> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>>     
>>> PJ wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Polytropon wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:54:23 -0400, PJ <af.gour...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>   
>>>       
>>>>>> but from man tunefs:
>>>>>> BUGS
>>>>>> This utility should work on active file systems.
>>>>>> What in hades does this mean--just above it says cannot be run on active
>>>>>> file systems. ???
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> It "should". This means: Don't try that. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> My printer isn't printing!
>>>>> But it should.
>>>>> No, it is not printing!
>>>>> Yes, but it should.
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> Aha! Gotcha! Whoever wrote that has made an unintentionnal booboo. It is
>>>> a subtle difference and is indicative that whoever wrote it is not a
>>>> native english user... the meaning is clearly "should be executed, done,
>>>> carried out, performed" - should work means it  can be carried out  - I
>>>> think the author meant to say "should not be done"
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> If you feel that you've found a 'bug' within the manual/documentation of
>>> a piece of software or function, I highly recommend that you pass it by
>>> other users/developers ( as you've kind-of done here ), and then contact
>>> the person who is normally listed in the AUTHOR section of the man page
>>> after you get a consensus on whether the manual, the code or you have
>>> the bug :)
>>>
>>> If you believe the problem is an engish-linguistic one (and the man page
>>> is written in english), let the author know this. Provide the correct
>>> verbiage, and an explanation of what your words mean compared to theirs
>>> (remember, english may not be their first language).
>>>
>>> Also, take a look at RFC 2119 for the keyword 'SHOULD' and 'SHOULD NOT'.
>>> RFC 2119 is highly regarded as the authority for many keywords, and a
>>> quick reference of it may help when trying to explain to an author where
>>> you feel their documentation is incorrect (or lacking).
>>>       
What in the world is RFC 2119? (that's a rhetorical question....) I
prefer to stick to orinary dictionaries, like Oxford, Collins, Webster...
then again, my college university studies were in English lit... but I'm
afraid I have have neglected that and have been somewhat dragged down to
the level of the "plebes" in the hope they may catch some of my
meanings... :-D
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> It is simple to understand Emglish but not so simple what was meant by
>> whoever wrote it...I cannot correct something that I do not uderstand...
>> come on, man, that should be easy to understand.
>>     
>
> I understand that I'm confused :)
>
>   
>> I am afraid that with all the globalization people still do not
>> understand that translations should be left to experts... an by that I
>> mean the final version should always, and I mean always, be by a native
>> speaking person.
>>     
>
> That's an unfair thing to say. Are you saying that if someone with a
> French native tongue wrote software that would benefit everyone, and
> they wrote the manual in English to reach a broader audience, that the
> manual shouldn't be released unless proof-read and re-written by an
> English native?
>   
YES! There are plenty of people who would be happy to help the guy get
the translation right... would you want someone to get a hold of a
weapon and then misuse it because the instructions are in sanskrit?
> Vous faire ce travail, mon ami? Je n'aime pas d'accord avec votre
> utilisation du mot doit.
>   
You are definitely not a frog... ;-)
> ...the manual is available. I didn't mean to dis-respect you, I just
> meant that if one 'could' help, then the developer is the one to hit up.
>   

>   
>> I speak english, french, italian, some spanish and german as well as
>> latvian... but I would never attempt to translate into any language
>> other than English... and then not without the help of the original
>> language's originator. ;-)
>>     
>
> Nice... How 'bout Dutch ;) You will understand then:
>
> Ne dis pas que la documentation ne peuvent etre ecrites par un auteur si
> leur lange nest pas une espece indigen. 
>   
Duh... that's not Dutch...
Nice try... your Frenchreminds me of my German... "great pronunciation,
but the grammar is horrible"  ;-)
Too many years ago I knew it well.
> Steve
>
>   

_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to