| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 03:25 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 26, 2006
Posts: 323
Location: Melbourne (VIC) Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
maslot, your resignation has been accepted , albeit ungraciously by me.
When you wish to return to active status, let me know.
Regards
Trevor |
_________________
 When all else fails, get the instructions back out of the rubbish bin and reread them. E&OE http://manual.sidux.com/
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject: could this be a solution?
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 05:32 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 02, 2006
Posts: 1707
Location: Germany / NRW
Status: Offline
|
|
|
slh wrote:
hubi wrote:
hubi hat folgendes geschrieben::
x -> ks* definitely looks strange to non Polish speakers, but if that is standard in Polish grammar, it is standard.
Standard or not, it is wrong<fullstop> Something called "siduks", "siduksa" or "siduksie" simply does not exist.
@ slh
Are you really aware of the fact that "siduksa", "siduksie" and so on are declined forms? If I say in german : Toyota's cars, nobody tries to look for a Toyota's.com website, people know that "Toyota's" is a declined form. And nobody speaks about URLs and so on.
And I don't understand your examples with the non working urls because the issue concerns exlusively continuous text ( I hope this is the correct word for "Fließtext" ) with the name "sidux" in a *declined* form.
Even in German, if we say correctly "zwei Airbusse" we know that there is no domain Airbusse.com, but only Airbus.com. And Airbus is a brand name as sidux is. So we should stop debate about domain names or URLs. This has never been a problem in maslot's polish translation until bluewater did change sidux to sidux.com where it was not neccessary. Is it now "sidux.com e.v." , too?
maslot wrote:
Some explanations:
...
Nouns which are not declined in sentence sound awful. You live in countries where declension is almost nonexistent. Germans, try to not conjugate verbs.
...
@ maslot
I do understand very well the need to decline a noun. But therfore I do NOT need to not conjugate a verb ... as we in Germany decline our nouns as you do in Poland. But you are right, with names and brands we try to avoid this in much, but not all cases.
As mentioned above, the declination should be no problem, as we do it as well. If we could agree that there is no problem to decline sidux as a brand name in continuous text, there would still remain this this alteration from x to ks.
My personal point of view is, that it's common use and a rule in polish language to do so even with brand names, and therefore no negative consequenses should derive from.
On the other hand, what happens presently in poland: If I understand what I found on polish websites, there is movement in this regard.
http://forum.jakilinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=13994
Here you will find:
Linux, linux, linuksa, linuxa, linuxie, linuksowi, linux'a, linuksowy, linux'a
Words can be carved in stone, but I think this example shows, that a language can't.
So, could this example provide a solution, even if *yet* this possibly is not 100% correct, but mayby it is tolerable because it could be the future?
Could you agree to use "siduxa", "siduxie" and so on where it is needed within continuous text? Maybe it is a forward-looking solution which at the present moment fits perfectly in the linguistic changes?
Please let us know.
siduxa, siduxie and so on are declined polish forms of a brand name as Airbusse is in german lanuage. I really hope this would be a solution both sides could live with. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: could this be a solution?
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 06:19 PM
|
|
Team Member
Joined: Nov 24, 2006
Posts: 2010
Location: w3
Status: Offline
|
|
@ michaa: Sorry, but I can very picky when it comes to linguistics. 
The correct genitivum for Toyota in German language would be "Toyotas" - and not Toyota's (which is the English one). But specially in German more and more modern linguists avoid building those ugly declinations of brand names for good reasons.
The plural for Airbus actually does not exist (as for most other brand names), as it is a brand name and not the aircraft itself. You therefore correctly say in German "Airbus Flugzeuge" or "Flugzeuge der Marke Airbus", or something similar.
All modern languages are under ongoing change, and the very topic of translating/using brand names is one of the most emerging ones. My Polish is very poor, but I do speak a couple of Slavic languages quite well. As already mentioned by Cobra, those languages are very much challenged with changes, while they do have also important reasons to stick with some traditions in order to preserve their unique cultures. However, the question of brand names in a technical manual is not much related to culture. A lot of professional opinion regarding this topic can be found in the forums at http://www.proz.com/ .
We here at sidux have no right to say how to correctly write Polish, but we have the right to say how we wish to have our brand name handled in ALL languages. We have not much influence on what happens in the press, but at least in our own publications we try to follow our ideas.
@h2: Of course you're correct when saying that a brand name building a true noun should start with a capital in proper English, and the same is true for the first word of a sentence. However, we love to see sidux being different, and I don't feel that it does any harm to the beauty of English if we ask people to always write sidux uncapitalized. This is no law or strict rule, just a friendly wish from the inital founders of sidux who created the name.
@all: Please calm down. It is important to have conversations about different languages and cultures, and everybody here is enjoying the leaning process those discussions create. But we all should control ourselves and not take any word too personal (or - much worse - as an offense against a language/culture/race). Let us continue the fine work here and learn from each other.
Greetings,
Chris |
_________________
64bit stuff for sidux
development is life - code.zikula.org
an operating system must operate - sidux.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: could this be a solution?
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 06:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 12, 2007
Posts: 328
|
|
|
slam wrote:
The plural for Airbus actually does not exist
it is not important, but the duden says
Quote:
Air|bus®, der; -[ses], -se [engl. airbus, aus: air (< frz. air, →Air) u. bus, →Bus] ...
http://www.duden.de/suche/index.php?begriff=airbus&bereich=mixed&pneu=#inhalte
although there are people who doubt the competence of the duden team and sometimes I belong to them
regards, cas |
_________________
sidux-2007-04 Ερως kde-full
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 07:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 02, 2006
Posts: 121
Status: Offline
|
|
slam: I don't claim that word "sidux" contaminates my language. It would be the contamination if I'd use it in improper form.
michaa: Polish orthography is very difficult e.g. we have letters we pronounce in the same way like "u" and "ó". If you search in google for "łódź" and (boat and name of one of the biggest cities in Poland) you'll find 25 m. results. But if you search for "łudź", you will find more than 66.000 results. But I wouldn't use the latter form in manual. Polish Language Council said that proper form is "Linuksa". I used the rule for sidux.
Why you didn't name the distribution "SLH"? The name "sidux" suggests that decisions are made together. Now I know that slh decides. And there would be no problems with grammar - I wouldn't decline "SLH". |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 07:55 PM
|
|
Team Member
Joined: Nov 24, 2006
Posts: 2010
Location: w3
Status: Offline
|
|
@maslot: If you are actually interested in a conversation and finding a resolution for this problem together, please join the team at the IRC #sidux-docs, which is the proper place to do so.
Greetings,
Chris |
_________________
64bit stuff for sidux
development is life - code.zikula.org
an operating system must operate - sidux.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: could this be a solution?
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 07:56 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 02, 2006
Posts: 1707
Location: Germany / NRW
Status: Offline
|
|
|
slam wrote:
@ michaa: Sorry, but I can very picky when it comes to linguistics.
Quote:
The correct genitivum for Toyota in German language would be "Toyotas" - and not Toyota's (which is the English one). But specially in German more and more modern linguists avoid building those ugly declinations of brand names for good reasons.
I am not quite sure if you are right, but either way you missed the point: Nobody would look for Toyotas.com , too. That's the point. It is useless to make a comment to something which might be a week argumet, but missing the point. This leads to nothing.
Quote:
The plural for Airbus actually does not exist (as for most other brand names), as it is a brand name and not the aircraft itself. You therefore correctly say in German "Airbus Flugzeuge" or "Flugzeuge der Marke Airbus", or something similar.
This is wrong. Look at the duden ( and I have other examples
as cas posted) And your example "Airbus Flugzeuge" is possible, but it is not true that this would be the only correct way. "Airbusse" is correct, too. If you show me your source for your claim, I show you mine!
And if the manual uses sidux *in continuous text* then in general it is used to indicate "the sidux software" or "the sidux distribution" and not the brand. Therefore bluewaters change from siduksa to sidux.com seems not a good choice.
Quote:
modern languages are under ongoing change, and the very topic of translating/using brand names is one of the most emerging ones. My Polish is very poor, but I do speak a couple of Slavic languages quite well. As already mentioned by Cobra, those languages are very much challenged with changes, while they do have also important reasons to stick with some traditions in order to preserve their unique cultures. However, the question of brand names in a technical manual is not much related to culture. A lot of professional opinion regarding this topic can be found in the forums at http://www.proz.com/ .
But what is your point? As you stated above, we use the declined form "Toyotas" ( or I my maybe faulty example Toyota's ), so why should it be a problem to have siduksa or siduxa in the polish language. Is it really worth to be so rigid due to an idea of a brand name and try to overrule ***declined*** forms of this brand name. Ok, I understand, sidux is not only spicy, but *different*. It is the sidux team's right to use such a merchandising trick. But the border between a merchandising trick and ( *linguistic *) arrogance is very difficult to draw. ( sidux likes to be different from firefoxa, unixa, Linusa Torvaldsa ( yes, that what they do), linuxa).
Quote:
We here at sidux have no right to say how to correctly write Polish, but we have the right to say how we wish to have our brand name handled in ALL languages. We have not much influence on what happens in the press, but at least in our own publications we try to follow our ideas.
You simply can't decide whether a nation declins a brand name or not. Should Toyota file a lawsuit against Germany because we use the declined form Toyotas ? And for whom is this manual made? ( = sidux team ).
Are you really willing not only to loose a member of the translation team but to risk to snub ( I mean "brüskieren") polish users? Would be bad marketing.
So it seems there is no space for more discussion about it. |
Last edited by michaa on Jan 27, 2008 - 08:06 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: could this be a solution?
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 07:57 PM
|
|
Team Member
Joined: Nov 24, 2006
Posts: 2010
Location: w3
Status: Offline
|
|
|
cas wrote:
slam wrote:
The plural for Airbus actually does not exist
it is not important, but the duden says
Quote:
Air|bus®, der; -[ses], -se [engl. airbus, aus: air (< frz. air, →Air) u. bus, →Bus] ...
http://www.duden.de/suche/index.php?begriff=airbus&bereich=mixed&pneu=#inhalte
although there are people who doubt the competence of the duden team and sometimes I belong to them
regards, cas
Hehe, following their rules we should write "2 Airbus®ses" - so far about the Duden team linguistic competence.
Greetings,
Chris |
_________________
64bit stuff for sidux
development is life - code.zikula.org
an operating system must operate - sidux.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 08:02 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 28, 2006
Posts: 4303
Status: Offline
|
|
|
Quote:
However, we love to see sidux being different, and I don't feel that it does any harm to the beauty of English if we ask people to always write sidux uncapitalized.
Well, I don't know about english having beauty or not, heh, but I do know that when something is done technically wrong, it just looks wrong, and that's really the only effect that the decision creates. I used to have a really dumb teacher who has some minor fame in an obscure field of liberal arts, and she insisted on typesetting her books by making the letters smaller where things had been hard for her, and larger when it was normal. This was and is just silly, a fad, pointless.
sidux does a great job in creating its mission of a user friendly sid runnable by mortals. Why confuse issues with things that do not in any way create a positive result or have any particular meaning beyond a simple idea one or two people here had about how something should look in print?
But, again, I really am not arguing this, but I do see the point maslot is making, and in my opinion, he is right. I react the same way to the lower case 's', I find it silly, and it just looks wrong, and most native english speakers would have the same reaction, though, like me, they would not really care, though they would notice it and maybe wonder a bit, which is not a good wondering, it's just wondering why someone forgot to capitalize it.
Anyway, this stuff should not cause any particular debate, I understand very well not wanting to break rules of grammar and syntax for no good reason, and I think that should be the number one concern of sidux, given it's alleged concern for multilingual support.
But, again, I am going to step out of this, because the idea that slh would even care about this enough to react the way he's doing I find somewhat odd, and it's not an area I want to step into any further. |
_________________
sidux Maintenance script: dist-upgrade, kernel install, general utilities: smxi
Backup script [using rdiff-backup]: rd-h2.sh
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 08:05 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 02, 2006
Posts: 1707
Location: Germany / NRW
Status: Offline
|
|
|
maslot wrote:
...Polish Language Council said that proper form is "Linuksa". I used the rule for sidux.
I know, but what do you say about people who use the form "linuxa"? How much is this used. And is it something which is accepted or at least tolerated by few, much or most people? Does the accepance grow? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 08:15 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 02, 2006
Posts: 1707
Location: Germany / NRW
Status: Offline
|
|
|
h2 wrote:
...I understand very well not wanting to break rules of grammar and syntax for no good reason, and I think that should be the number one concern of sidux, given it's alleged concern for multilingual support.
...
thanks h2, you said it very well. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: could this be a solution?
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 08:35 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 12, 2007
Posts: 328
|
|
|
slam wrote:
Quote:
Air|bus®, der; -[ses], -se
we should write "2 Airbus®ses" - so far about the Duden team linguistic competence.
I understand it: noun, genitiv, plural.
but joking apart:
maybe you or others can explain why it is so important to you. what goal do you want to achieve?
maybe translators can accept more easily then. but even more important than opinion of translators is IMO what the particular readers will think about possible unusal, ugly or even wrong use of language. the manual is for readers.
regarding polish translation, if maslot's opinion is doubted, a further polish view might be helpful.
regards, cas |
_________________
sidux-2007-04 Ερως kde-full
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: could this be a solution?
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 08:48 PM
|
|
Team Member
Joined: Nov 24, 2006
Posts: 2010
Location: w3
Status: Offline
|
|
I can speak just for myself. I deeply believe that sidux™ (or sidux®) should remain as it is in any given language - and believe me, the languages I personally do speak well do have massive problems with that. I think that a young and not well known trade mark needs special protection in order to become better known and more spread. It must look different, and it should break conventions, even grammatical ones in order to get more attention. We do not have the marketing budget other Linux distributions can rely on, so we need to use different methods to get known. Preserving the brand name against all grammatical rules is one of those methods.
Well, you need to ask everybody else in the sidux team about their reasons to support this practice - those are mine.
Greetings,
Chris |
_________________
64bit stuff for sidux
development is life - code.zikula.org
an operating system must operate - sidux.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: could this be a solution?
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 09:13 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 02, 2006
Posts: 1707
Location: Germany / NRW
Status: Offline
|
|
|
slam wrote:
...order to become better known and more spread. It must look different, ...
Now I am quoting a small part of my own post above which you may have missed ..
michaa wrote:
...
Ok, I understand, sidux is not only spicy, but *different*. It is the sidux team's right to use such a merchandising trick. But the border between a merchandising trick and ( *linguistic *) arrogance is very difficult to draw. ( sidux likes to be different from firefoxa, unixa, Linusa Torvaldsa ( yes, that what they do), linuxa).
The whole problem consists of the handling of declined forms. This is not a brand issue but a SOUND issue! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: could this be a solution?
Posted: Jan 27, 2008 - 09:32 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 28, 2006
Posts: 4303
Status: Offline
|
|
| The mark is not damaged or furthered at all by this discussion or these practices. The inner quality of the slh kernel, the system scripts, the fll tools, is what is promoting sidux, not the ks or s or S. Anyway, I guess this is life in the free software world... |
_________________
sidux Maintenance script: dist-upgrade, kernel install, general utilities: smxi
Backup script [using rdiff-backup]: rd-h2.sh
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
