Am Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:50:20 +0200 schrieb Enrico Tröger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:51:42 +0200, Christian Dywan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Am Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:35:23 +0200 > >schrieb Fabian Nowak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > > > >> > >It's right, a lot of our English strings could use some > >> > >improvements. But "einstellen" is neutral (it doesn't say > >> > >whether something is going to be activated or deactivated) > >> > >whereas "enable" clearly is the opposite of "disable" and thus > >> > >explains what it does. > >> > > >> > > >> > Full ACK. > >> > "enable" has never a similar meaning as "einstellen". > >> > >> Contra, but seee other post, I admit its confusing when it can be > >> misunderstood in that very context. But you do it with your > >> favorite music player and other things among "anstellen, > >> aktivieren". > > > >For the record, one needs to be aware that 'einstellen' can have > >several meanings depending on the context. And 'to switch sth. on' > >can actually be translated as 'etwas einstellen'. However I would > > IMO translating 'to switch sth. on' with 'etwas einstellen' can maybe > correct but doesn't sound well. For me it sounds like old German, not > sure how to explain but you certainly know the language and use of > words older people speak if different from what younger people speak. > Not to mention what the current 'Jugendsprache' does with the German > language, but that's another topic :). > Summarising, I think for 'enable' we really should use something like > 'aktiveren', 'einschalten' or 'verwenden' and don't let sound the > translation like the translator was 90 years old. I don't think I am 90 years of age, nor are most of the people I'm usually around, and still I find "einstellen" as a synonym for "einschalten" pretty normal, I actually asked other a few friends and they don't see what is wrong with that word either. Anyhow, like I said before, for the sake of avoiding confusion I would rather not use this word in the particular meaning. :) > >> > >(That doesn't impress me too much. My minor subject at the > >> > >University is all about user interfaces and usability as well.) > >> > > > >> > >Personally, I strongly prefer "Schaltfläche". But I agree that > >> > >you can argue about that. If you check > >> > >http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schaltfl%C3%A4che or > >> > >http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafische_Benutzeroberfl%C3%A4che > >> > >you'll not find "Knopf" anywhere. To me it sounds just wrong. > >> > > >> > Full ACK again. > >> > 'Knopf' sucks. It reminds of the buttons I have on my jacket to > >> > close it when I'm freezing :D. > >> > >> And this is where it comes from. You can push it, there's an > >> action. That's actually just the poit why I do not like the toggle > >> button-like "Schaltfläche". > > > >>From my experience I'm used to understand 'Schaltfläche' as the same > >as a normal clickable button in English. The difference between > >'Schaltfläche' and 'Knopf' is basically the level of formality. And I > >think that's why 'Schaltfläche' is so dominant that it feels wrong > >not to use it, comparable to the use of 'Sie' forms. > > I don't think so. Regardless of any formaility level of both words, > 'Knopf' is simply wrong, IMO. Translating 'button' into German near > its meaning I'd say 'Drücker' but this sounds silly, obviously. But > it gets very close to the real meaning. 'Knopf' doesn't do that even > not even approximately. I don't really see what is wrong with the word 'Knopf'. But I don't mind if 'Schatfläche' is the preferred term. Yours, Christian _______________________________________________ Xfce-i18n mailing list [email protected] http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-i18n
