https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155087
--- Comment #14 from cipricus <cipri...@gmail.com> ---
I HAVE READ THE WHOLE LIST!
I am mentioning below most if not all cases that I think should be taken out. I
have already tried to articulate the reason for that.
Although bringing case-by-case examples and arguments should not the way to go
about this, and the decision whether to correct or not existing words should
only be made on a general principle (that is: NO VALID FORMS SHOULD EVER BE
CORRECTED), the problematic entries can also be treated one by one because they
are not that many after all.
The replacement of articulated nouns just because they are not frequent enough
(based on subjective and inconsistent criteria) is always wrong, but in certain
cases it is more strikingly so, when the articulated form is obviously equally
frequent.
That happens based on specific rules of Romanian. For example, an adjective can
be “substantived” – that is, made to act like a noun and become the subject,
like in English (dead – the dead):
moarta>moartă (the dead woman > dead, adj., fem.)
(Moarta era întinsă pe pat.= The dead woman was laying on the bed.)
prevenita-prevenită
the arrested woman>warned, arrested person, adj., fem.
Prevenita nu era de față=The arrested woman was not present.
negativa>negativă
the negative form/one>negative, adj., fem.
Negativa nu este valabilă= The negative form is not valid.
ridicata > ridicată
a ridica=to raise up, ridicată=raised up, adj., fem.
”cu ridicata”=wholsale
That happens often in the case of colors, where the form of the adjective is
articulated and acts as a short-hand or generic noun ("the black"):
alba>albă (the white [one]>white, adj. fem.)
neagra>neagră (the black [one].>black adj., fem.,)
"Neagra/alba e mai scumpă"= the black/white [one] (e.g. the black or white car)
is more expensive.
- the same with other colors: albastra - ”the blue [one]”, which the corrector
changes to albastră=blue! (But then it ignores other colors.)
It is a common rule in Romanian for adjectives to change word order and be
articulated when a possessive pronoun (my, mine, his, hers) is used. One can
indifferently say “trista mea situație” or ”situația mea tristă” (”my sad
situation”), ”blonda mea soție” or ”soția mea blondă” (my blonde wife). – I
wonder why the corrector is not correcting ”trista” to ”tristă”, and ”blonda”
to ”blondă”, given that is doing it for alba>albă and
neagra>neagră, as well as for other forms – see below!
As I said in another comment: not only these corrections are wrong, but they
are inconsistent – they are unexpected, but, IF ACCEPTED, they are also
unexpectedly absent in other cases. – ”Alba” and ”neagra” are no different from
something like ”blonda” (blonde girl/woman), which is (rightly so) NOT
corrected to ”blondă” (blonde, adjective).
absoluta>absolută
the absolute [one], fem.>absolute, adj., fem.
Absoluta lui încredere=his absolute confidence
singuratica > singuratică
the lonely [one], fem. > lonely, adj., fem.
Singuratica lui viață=His lonely life.
temeinica > temeinică (steadfast, well-founded, adj., fem.)
Temeinica lui decizie=his steadfast decision
vaga > vagă (vague, adj., fem.)
Vaga ta propunere=your vague proposition
valabila > valabilă (valid, adj., fem.)
Valabila ta depoziție = your valid statement
multa>multă (numerous, big/adj., fem)
Often rather archaic but very frequent in the Bible, and in religious and other
literary speech: "Multa mea durere" (my big sorrow)
amoroasa>amoroasă
Amoroasa sa soție=his loving/amorous wife
regala>regală
the royal [one]>royal, adj., fem.
Regala sa prezență=His/her royal stature
This ”correction” is doubly wrong because ”regala” is also a verb: to feast,
treat royally, cf. French: ”(se) régaler”
ciudata>ciudată (odd, bizarre, adj., fem.)
Ciudata sa atitudine=his bizarre atitude
This word order/articulation change also happens with the “demonstrative
pronouns” (this, that):
Ciudata asta nu vorbește cu mine.=This bizarre girl/woman won’t speak to me.
toleranta (tolerant, adj. fem., definite article) >"toleranța" (tolerance, n.,
fem.)
Toleranta sa poziție=his tolerant position
While the corrector erroneously replaces “ciudata”, because of inconsistency
(within this erroneous trend) it doesn’t replace “frumoasa” (the beautiful
[one, fem.]), “proasta” (the stupid one), ”drogata” (the drugged one) etc, –
but arbitrarily DOES (and IT SHOULDN’T) replace ”contagioasa" (the contagious
[one, fem.]), ”religioasa” (the religious one), ”rezolvata” (the
resolved/solutioned one), ”ridicata” (the raised/upper one), ”salvata” (the
saved one), ”zoologica” (the zoologic one) with their non-articulated forms!
That such correct words are replaced just because they have the feminine
definite article is beyond comprehension. Some of these articulated forms set
to be replaced are not very frequent (e.g. ”greceasca”=”the Greek [thing,
fem.]”, or ”ruseasca”=the Russian [thing, fem.]), but THAT IS NOT A REASON to
”correct” them.
ONLY INCORRECT FORMS SHOULD BE CORRECTED! (One cannot say that ”greceasca” is
erroneous, even if one never uses it: it is just the articulated form of the
adjective ”grecească”, and it makes no sense to change the articulated form
into the non-articulated one.)
As already said, another error is the auto-correction of verb tenses:
completa>completă
to complete, was completing>complete, adj., fem.
The already mentioned:
aclamam (I/we were acclaiming)>aclamăm (we are acclaiming)
activași (you have just activated)>activați (you are activating; also:
activated, masculine,plural)
condamnam (I/we were condemning)-condamnăm (we are condemning)
*****************************************************************
The above errors are based on an erroneous line of argument. The following are
blunt errors that need no arguing:
maestra (master/teacher, n., fem. definite article)>maestră (the same,
non-articulated)
(”Aşa am cunoscut-o pe maestra mea de la Milano, Mildela D'Amico“, explică
soprana,="That's how I met my teacher from Milan, Mildela D'Amico", explains
the soprano.)
struna > strună
string, noun, fem., definite article > string, noun, fem.
muschetar >mușchetar (musqueteer)
both terms are correct
"ași" (aces, plural of “as”=ace)>"își" (to oneself)
"atacat" (attacked) >"atăcat" (???)
"pastorul" (reverend, protestant priest) – "păstorul"(shepherd)
For no reason only the articulated forms are affected.
"regala"="regală"/>
already mentioned
"rida" (to wrinkle) – "râdă" (to lough)
“valva" (valve, n. fem., definite article) > "vâlvă" (uproar)
"tai" (I/you cut) – ”tăi" (yours, plural)
tara (fault, imperfection, with definite article, fem., cf. French
”tare”=”défectuosité”) > țara (country, definite article, feminine)
oddly, this error includes also an inconsistency with the global trend of
correcting to non-articulated form (which here would be ”țară”)
“vad” (river ford) > "văd" (I/they see)
”taică-meu" ="taica-meu" (my father)
this is a simple error by inversion of the model of previous entries in the
list:
<block-list:block block-list:abbreviated-name="taica-miu"
block-list:name="taică-miu"/>
<block-list:block block-list:abbreviated-name="Taica-miu"
block-list:name="Taică-miu"/>
<block-list:block block-list:abbreviated-name="taica-tau"
block-list:name="taică-tău"/>
<block-list:block block-list:abbreviated-name="Taica-tau"
block-list:name="Taică-tău"/>
"absortia" – "absorția"
both are wrong
All possible errors ("absortie" – "absorție", apsortie, apsorție) should be
corrected to ”absorbție”
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
