questions on util-linux translation

questions on util-linux translation

[Antonio Ceballos]

Hi util-linux team,

I am the Spanish translator of util-linux, and I would like to ask you
a couple of questions. I am working on the translation of util-linux
2.25.1-rc1.

1. In the following piece of the .pot file:

#: disk-utils/mkfs.c:47
#, c-format
msgid ""
" -V, --verbose      explain what is being done;\n"
"                      specifying -V more than once will cause a dry-run\n"
msgstr ""

#: disk-utils/mkfs.c:49
#, c-format
msgid ""
" -V, --version      display version information and exit;\n"
"                      -V as --version must be the only option\n"
msgstr ""

You can see '-V' (uppercase) for both --verbose and --version. Is that correct?

2. Could the English wording be improved in the following sentence?

#: disk-utils/partx.c:312
#, fuzzy, c-format
#| msgid "This partition already exists.\n"
msgid "%s: partition #%d already doesn't exist\n"
msgstr ""

I would suggest something like:
msgid "%s: partition #%d doesn't exist\n"
msgid "%s: partition #%d no longer exists\n"

Regards,
Antonio Ceballos

Re: questions on util-linux translation

[Benno Schulenberg]

Hi Antonio,  :)

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015, at 11:11, Antonio Ceballos wrote:
> msgid ""
> " -V, --verbose      explain what is being done;\n"
> "                      specifying -V more than once will cause a dry-run\n"
> 
> msgid ""
> " -V, --version      display version information and exit;\n"
> "                      -V as --version must be the only option\n"
> 
> You can see '-V' (uppercase) for both --verbose and --version. Is that correct?

It is.  As the second line for --version tries to explain, -V *only* means
--version when no other option is specified.  -V together with other options
means --verbose.

> 2. Could the English wording be improved in the following sentence?
> msgid "%s: partition #%d already doesn't exist\n"

Hmm, yes, it should.  In Dutch I have translated it to the equivalent
of "partition #%d doesn't even exist" -- which sounds a tiny bit like:
"you're stupid".  So I'd better change that.  :|

> I would suggest something like:
> msgid "%s: partition #%d doesn't exist\n"
> msgid "%s: partition #%d no longer exists\n"

The latter one does not seem correct -- maybe the partition never
existed at all.  The verbose message was introduced with commit
ab025087f91b66ee8e23a16bc49eb0d9bd421d65 -- when a range of
partitions is specified for removal, say 5 to 9, and partition 7
does not exist, then, when --verbose is specified, partx would
mention that "partition #7 already doesn't exist".  Probably it is
better so say something like "skipping nonexistent partition #7"?
What do you think?

Benno

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                          unladen european swallow

Re: questions on util-linux translation

[Antonio Ceballos]

Hi Benno,

Nice to see you here too. :)

1. Understood. I think I read too quickly the second line for --version.

2. My first suggestion is "too neutral" for that context. Your
suggestion probably sounds better. I presume that something
more explicit but longer is worse, such as:

"partition #7 cannot be removed, as it doesn't exist"

Antonio


On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Benno Schulenberg
<bensberg@justemail.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Antonio,  :)
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015, at 11:11, Antonio Ceballos wrote:
>> msgid ""
>> " -V, --verbose      explain what is being done;\n"
>> "                      specifying -V more than once will cause a dry-run\n"
>>
>> msgid ""
>> " -V, --version      display version information and exit;\n"
>> "                      -V as --version must be the only option\n"
>>
>> You can see '-V' (uppercase) for both --verbose and --version. Is that correct?
>
> It is.  As the second line for --version tries to explain, -V *only* means
> --version when no other option is specified.  -V together with other options
> means --verbose.
>
>> 2. Could the English wording be improved in the following sentence?
>> msgid "%s: partition #%d already doesn't exist\n"
>
> Hmm, yes, it should.  In Dutch I have translated it to the equivalent
> of "partition #%d doesn't even exist" -- which sounds a tiny bit like:
> "you're stupid".  So I'd better change that.  :|
>
>> I would suggest something like:
>> msgid "%s: partition #%d doesn't exist\n"
>> msgid "%s: partition #%d no longer exists\n"
>
> The latter one does not seem correct -- maybe the partition never
> existed at all.  The verbose message was introduced with commit
> ab025087f91b66ee8e23a16bc49eb0d9bd421d65 -- when a range of
> partitions is specified for removal, say 5 to 9, and partition 7
> does not exist, then, when --verbose is specified, partx would
> mention that "partition #7 already doesn't exist".  Probably it is
> better so say something like "skipping nonexistent partition #7"?
> What do you think?
>
> Benno
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.com - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
>                           unladen european swallow
>

Re: questions on util-linux translation

[Benno Schulenberg]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015, at 11:34, Antonio Ceballos wrote:
> 2. My first suggestion is "too neutral" for that context. Your
> suggestion probably sounds better. I presume that something
> more explicit but longer is worse, such as:
> 
> "partition #7 cannot be removed, as it doesn't exist"

Yeah, that is rather oververbose.  The message is not a contextless
error message, but gets produced only when --verbose is used.  The
previously mentioned example of deleting partitions 5 to 9 (with 7
not existing), the command would be:

partx --delete --verbose -n 5:9 /dev/sda

and it currently would print the following progress messages:

dev/sda: partition #5 removed
dev/sda: partition #6 removed
dev/sda: partition #7 already doesn't exist
dev/sda: partition #8 removed
dev/sda: partition #9 removed

In fact I think the message for #7 is quite good,
and I don't think that my proposal is any better:

dev/sda: partition #5 removed
dev/sda: partition #6 removed
dev/sda: skipping nonexistent partition #7
dev/sda: partition #8 removed
dev/sda: partition #9 removed

Benno

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
                          love email again

Re: questions on util-linux translation

[Peter Cordes]

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 09:48:48PM +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015, at 11:34, Antonio Ceballos wrote:
> > 2. My first suggestion is "too neutral" for that context. Your
> > suggestion probably sounds better. I presume that something
> > more explicit but longer is worse, such as:
> > 
> > "partition #7 cannot be removed, as it doesn't exist"
> 
> Yeah, that is rather oververbose.  The message is not a contextless
> error message, but gets produced only when --verbose is used.  The
> previously mentioned example of deleting partitions 5 to 9 (with 7
> not existing), the command would be:
> 
> partx --delete --verbose -n 5:9 /dev/sda
> 
> and it currently would print the following progress messages:
> 
> dev/sda: partition #5 removed
> dev/sda: partition #6 removed
> dev/sda: partition #7 already doesn't exist
> dev/sda: partition #8 removed
> dev/sda: partition #9 removed
> 
> In fact I think the message for #7 is quite good,
> and I don't think that my proposal is any better:
> 
> dev/sda: partition #5 removed
> dev/sda: partition #6 removed
> dev/sda: skipping nonexistent partition #7
> dev/sda: partition #8 removed
> dev/sda: partition #9 removed

 As an unbiased observer (never used partx, so I'm the target audience
for understanding its output), either of these two look fine.
"already doesn't exist" mentally parses quickly.  That phrasing has
the advantage that the partition number is at the same column as the
messages for successful deletion, so you can scan down the column of
numbers and see that's the only message about #7.

 With the 2nd phrasing, I found I took a sec of extra time for my eye
to bounce from the column of #5, #6, <gap>, #8, #9 out to the #7.

 So I'd suggest keeping the "partition #%d already doesn't exist".  As
a native English speaker, I agree it sounds slightly clumsy, but it
gets the point across quickly and unambiguously.  You could maybe lose
the word "already", and say
"partition #%d doesn't exist"

 Or maybe "partition #%d: no such partition", to use the familiar
wording of strerror(ENOENT): "no such file or directory".

-- 
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X(peter@cor , des.ca)

"The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
 Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
 my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BC

Re: questions on util-linux translation

[Bruce Dubbs]

Peter Cordes wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 09:48:48PM +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015, at 11:34, Antonio Ceballos wrote:
>>> 2. My first suggestion is "too neutral" for that context. Your
>>> suggestion probably sounds better. I presume that something
>>> more explicit but longer is worse, such as:
>>>
>>> "partition #7 cannot be removed, as it doesn't exist"
>>
>> Yeah, that is rather oververbose.  The message is not a contextless
>> error message, but gets produced only when --verbose is used.  The
>> previously mentioned example of deleting partitions 5 to 9 (with 7
>> not existing), the command would be:
>>
>> partx --delete --verbose -n 5:9 /dev/sda
>>
>> and it currently would print the following progress messages:
>>
>> dev/sda: partition #5 removed
>> dev/sda: partition #6 removed
>> dev/sda: partition #7 already doesn't exist
>> dev/sda: partition #8 removed
>> dev/sda: partition #9 removed
>>
>> In fact I think the message for #7 is quite good,
>> and I don't think that my proposal is any better:
>>
>> dev/sda: partition #5 removed
>> dev/sda: partition #6 removed
>> dev/sda: skipping nonexistent partition #7
>> dev/sda: partition #8 removed
>> dev/sda: partition #9 removed
>
>   As an unbiased observer (never used partx, so I'm the target audience
> for understanding its output), either of these two look fine.
> "already doesn't exist" mentally parses quickly.  That phrasing has
> the advantage that the partition number is at the same column as the
> messages for successful deletion, so you can scan down the column of
> numbers and see that's the only message about #7.
>
>   With the 2nd phrasing, I found I took a sec of extra time for my eye
> to bounce from the column of #5, #6, <gap>, #8, #9 out to the #7.
>
>   So I'd suggest keeping the "partition #%d already doesn't exist".  As
> a native English speaker, I agree it sounds slightly clumsy, but it
> gets the point across quickly and unambiguously.  You could maybe lose
> the word "already", and say
> "partition #%d doesn't exist"
>
>   Or maybe "partition #%d: no such partition", to use the familiar
> wording of strerror(ENOENT): "no such file or directory".

Since we are discussing wording, I will suggest:

dev/sda: partition #7 currently does not exist

I would think that contractions are not really appropriate in this 
environment and may marginally help with scripting by omitting the 
apostrophe.

"partition #%d does not exist"

is also reasonable.

   -- Bruce

Re: questions on util-linux translation

[JWP]

On 01/07/2015 11:05 PM, Peter Cordes wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 09:48:48PM +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015, at 11:34, Antonio Ceballos wrote:
>>> 2. My first suggestion is "too neutral" for that context. Your
>>> suggestion probably sounds better. I presume that something
>>> more explicit but longer is worse, such as:
>>>
>>> "partition #7 cannot be removed, as it doesn't exist"
>>
>> Yeah, that is rather oververbose.  The message is not a contextless
>> error message, but gets produced only when --verbose is used.  The
>> previously mentioned example of deleting partitions 5 to 9 (with 7
>> not existing), the command would be:
>>
>> partx --delete --verbose -n 5:9 /dev/sda
>>
>> and it currently would print the following progress messages:
>>
>> dev/sda: partition #5 removed
>> dev/sda: partition #6 removed
>> dev/sda: partition #7 already doesn't exist
>> dev/sda: partition #8 removed
>> dev/sda: partition #9 removed
>>
>> In fact I think the message for #7 is quite good,
>> and I don't think that my proposal is any better:
>>
>> dev/sda: partition #5 removed
>> dev/sda: partition #6 removed
>> dev/sda: skipping nonexistent partition #7
>> dev/sda: partition #8 removed
>> dev/sda: partition #9 removed
> 
>  As an unbiased observer (never used partx, so I'm the target audience
> for understanding its output), either of these two look fine.
> "already doesn't exist" mentally parses quickly.  That phrasing has
> the advantage that the partition number is at the same column as the
> messages for successful deletion, so you can scan down the column of
> numbers and see that's the only message about #7.
> 
>  With the 2nd phrasing, I found I took a sec of extra time for my eye
> to bounce from the column of #5, #6, <gap>, #8, #9 out to the #7.
> 
>  So I'd suggest keeping the "partition #%d already doesn't exist".  As
> a native English speaker, I agree it sounds slightly clumsy, but it
> gets the point across quickly and unambiguously.  You could maybe lose
> the word "already", and say
> "partition #%d doesn't exist"

dev/sda: partition #5 removed
dev/sda: partition #6 removed
dev/sda: partition #7 doesn't exist
dev/sda: partition #8 removed
dev/sda: partition #9 removed

That sounds the most correct to me; 'already' is the clumsy part.

Re: questions on util-linux translation

[Benno Schulenberg]

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015, at 05:05, Peter Cordes wrote:
>  So I'd suggest keeping the "partition #%d already doesn't exist".  As
> a native English speaker, I agree it sounds slightly clumsy, but it
> gets the point across quickly and unambiguously.  You could maybe lose
> the word "already", and say
> "partition #%d doesn't exist"

Agreed.  Corresponding patch is coming up.

Benno

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - mmm... Fastmail...