On 14-01-10 09:43 AM, Andrej N. Gritsenko wrote:
>
> That's okay but I want to create as less work for the translators as
> possible therefore that word should be appliable for links creation as
> well, see below.
I'm pretty sure that's not possible. Native English speakers don't use
the same phrase structure for moving and creating. I'll explain in more
detail below.
>
>>> 2) More complex case:
>
>>> Changing attributes of files: 1, 2, 3, ...
>>> ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>>> Changing attributes of file 53
>
>>> Q: Is the 'of' correct word here or should it be 'for' instead?
>
>> That's a very tricky case to explain. Both are "valid enough" but
>> determining which is more valid requires an understanding of English
>> grammar and the nature of "attributes" that most native speakers lack.
>
>> ("on" would also be valid enough though less because it's intuitive and
>> more from seeing it used so often that it becomes normal.)
>
>> I can try to make a suggestion but first I need a clearer understanding
>> of which operations that message will and will not be displayed for. Is
>> it just for setting the mode bits or does it cover other attributes as well?
>
> Well, changeable attributes may be (not valid for every file, it's why
> the "may" is used here):
> - mode bits
> - owner and group
> - displayable name
> - associated icon
> - "hidden" attribute
> - link's target
>
Yeah, I think "of", "for", or "on" would all be equally correct. The
distinctions they embody don't really have a clear meaning in terms of
file attributes.
"of" refers to something which "belongs to" the file, "for" refers to
something that "applies/refers to" the file, and "on" refers to
something that is "attached to (but not contained in)" the file. All
three are equally accurate ways to describe the relationship between a
file and its filesystem attributes.
My only further advice would be that, in my personal, subjective
experience as a native English speaker, "for" and "on" feel *slightly*
more natural than "of" in that sentence.
>>> 2) Yet more complex case:
>>>
>>> Creating links to files: 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
>>> To: /tmp
>>> ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>>> Creating link /tmp/423
>>>
>>> Q: Is the 'to' correct word here or should it be 'onto' (or even 'for')
>>> instead?
>>> Q: If 'to' is correct then probably 'To:' should be changed? Or not?
>
> Since you skipped the first question, I assume that "Creating links
> to files" is correct there, right?
>
Yes. The links point/refer to the files you're listing so that phrasing
is correct.
>> Use "In:" since you're creating the links IN the parent folder you're
>> displaying.
>
> For a bit of clarification: it is not always the folder that is whown
> already, it might be selected as destination folder from folder selection
> window (similarly to what "Copy to..." does).
>
> As I said above, I don't want to add another string to translators
> (with a comment too, especially knowing not all translators read the
> comments with appropriate attention, and in some languages the word "in"
> which means to have inside and word "in" which means to put inside are
> very different words). Therefore I would like to have here the same
> string as for destination folder used in the copying case, which will
> tell user that new files will be added to the destination folder. What
> can you tell about using "Into:" here?
Because English draws a grammatical distinction between verbs of
movement and verbs of non-movement, you can't "create <something> into"
in English.
(The only grey area is phrases like "walking in a park" where you ARE
moving, but the act of walking doesn't cause you to enter or leave the
park so, relative to the park as a whole, it's not an act of movement.)
"Into" implies movement because it contains "to" while "create" and "in"
(without "to") imply non-movement.
Creating a link is conceptualized as having the link pop into existence,
so you cannot use movement prepositions with it. (The use of "to" in
"link to" refers to "where people go when they FOLLOW the link" rather
than the link itself.) You must use "in" or "at".
Moving a file, by definition, involves movement, so you must use "to" or
"into".
Copying can use either set of prepositions because we conceptualize it
in two steps (creating the copy and then moving it into place) and the
English language allows us to refer to the whole operation using the
prepositions appropriate to either part.
For example, copying to/into the clipboard. Physically, you'd make the
copy (by hand, using a photocopier, etc.) and then put it onto the
clipboard.
On a related note, the only reason you're not forced to say "onto" when
talking about a computer clipboard is that, despite the physical
metaphor used, we also think of a computer's clipboard as a container,
like a folder, and as a unique location referring to a single item, like
a filesystem path.
Anyway, another reason alternate phrasings can't be used to make linking
a "movement" verb is that "creating a filesystem link" is an operation
that doesn't cleanly match up with the underlying conceptual framework
in a natural language like English, so you have to rely on convention.
"to" refers to the file/folder which the link points/refers to.
"in" refers to the folder inside which the link will be created.
"at" refers to the location (full path including filename) at which the
link will be created.
"into" can't be used because it conflicts with the non-movement in the
concept of "creating" the link.
"from" is too ambiguous to be used (Does it refer to the file from which
the user will create the link or the location from which the user will
start when they "follow" the link?)
Technically, you can say "Creating links from /tmp/1, /tmp/2, /tmp/3,
/tmp/4, ... to 1, 2, 3, 4" but that wastes space and is so far removed
from the normal phrasing in UI design that it would confuse users.
(I'm a skilled user and even I would have to stop and think about that
to make sense of what it's trying to say. Talking about filesystem links
in a concise manner just isn't something that comes readily to English.)
>
> Such brilliant bunch of advices! Thank you very much!
You're welcome.
Oh, and "advice" is uncountable while "bunch" is countable, so it'd be
"Such a brilliant bunch of advice" or, as a native speaker would say,
"Such brilliant advice".
(Specifying the quantity as "a bunch" doesn't add more useful
information so native speakers don't say it.)
> With best regards.
> Andriy.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Lxde-list mailing list
Lxde-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
