<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39638 >

2007/8/31, Marko Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> <URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39638 >
>
> On 31/08/2007, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The way I have translated these strings might help. I have adapted the
> > sentence to read:
> >
> > "Each worked tile with at least 1 point of  %s will yield ..."
> >
> > Then "All" might become "all kinds of output", or "any output", or
> something
> > similar, and it would fit in all the sentences Marko has dug up. Of
> course,
> > some translator comments would be essential for us translators to make
> it
> > fit in the sentences.
>
> Those sentences where it appears twice, are problematic:
> "... at least 1 point of any output, will yield 2 additional points of
> any output"
> should be
> "... at least 1 point of any output, will yield 2 additional points of
> that output"
>
> And it would be good if we could avoid using such internal concepts
> as 'output' in end-user help.
>
How about generating list of output types currently in use? That
> would turn out something like "food, trade or shields".
> and some example sentences (some using that list, some with specific
> output):


You have a point here. After all, this is the help system. The more info we
give, and the less ambiguous, the better. I don't like "production" (I tend
to think of production as synonymous with shields), and "output" is only
slightly better. Definitely, listing the three items is best.

"... at least 1 point of 'food, trade or shields', will yield 2
> additional points of it."
> "... at least 1 point of 'food', will yield 2 additional points of it."
>
> Or do we need two lists? 'or' -list and 'and' -list.
>
> "You pay 2 times normal 'food, trade and shields' upkeep for your units."
> "You pay 2 times normal 'food' upkeep for your units."


But I thought upkeep was only paid  with  shields, isn't it? Apart for the
food for Settlers, of course. Perhaps your are thinking of alternate
rulesets where upkeep may be paid with everything? Anyway, implementing an
and-list and an or-list shouldn't be too hard, and it pays off with more
natural sentences.


> Some sentences should be modified, too; anyway, "All production will
> suffer
> > massive waste" is misleading, if it refers to both trade and shields
> > (perhaps also food?). Maybe just removing "production" will do the
> trick:
>
> "'food, trade and shields' production will suffer massive waste"
> "'food' production will suffer massive waste"


Yes, this way it gets clear, and the word "production" fits just fine.

Joan



2007/8/31, Marko Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39638 >

On 31/08/2007, Joan Creus <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> The way I have translated these strings might help. I have adapted the
> sentence to read:
>
> "Each worked tile with at least 1 point of  %s will yield ..."
>
> Then "All" might become "all kinds of output", or "any output", or something
> similar, and it would fit in all the sentences Marko has dug up. Of course,
> some translator comments would be essential for us translators to make it
> fit in the sentences.

Those sentences where it appears twice, are problematic:
"... at least 1 point of any output, will yield 2 additional points of
any output"
should be
"... at least 1 point of any output, will yield 2 additional points of
that output"

And it would be good if we could avoid using such internal concepts
as 'output' in end-user help.
How about generating list of output types currently in use? That
would turn out something like "food, trade or shields".
and some example sentences (some using that list, some with specific output):

You have a point here. After all, this is the help system. The more info we give, and the less ambiguous, the better. I don't like "production" (I tend to think of production as synonymous with shields), and "output" is only slightly better. Definitely, listing the three items is best.

"... at least 1 point of 'food, trade or shields', will yield 2
additional points of it."
"... at least 1 point of 'food', will yield 2 additional points of it."

Or do we need two lists? 'or' -list and 'and' -list.

"You pay 2 times normal 'food, trade and shields' upkeep for your units."
"You pay 2 times normal 'food' upkeep for your units."

But I thought upkeep was only paid  with  shields, isn't it? Apart for the food for Settlers, of course. Perhaps your are thinking of alternate rulesets where upkeep may be paid with everything? Anyway, implementing an and-list and an or-list shouldn't be too hard, and it pays off with more natural sentences.


> Some sentences should be modified, too; anyway, "All production will suffer
> massive waste" is misleading, if it refers to both trade and shields
> (perhaps also food?). Maybe just removing "production" will do the trick:

"'food, trade and shields' production will suffer massive waste"
"'food' production will suffer massive waste"

Yes, this way it gets clear, and the word "production" fits just fine.

Joan

_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Reply via email to