[texworks] german translation

[Thomas Floeren]

Hi Stefan,

thanks for your answer;

I will sort out (bring forward) the things I'm going to comment,
which are esentially the things you commented.
this doesn't mean, that the other things will get burried
nor that some of the other (minor) things will get lost.

But, otherwise all this gets to heavy and confusing.

Well, nevertheless some things will just get burried, forgotten etc.  
(gimme more words), I guess, at least for the next year.
Few days ago there were a good film about this on TV. It was on ARD,  
the german title was "2 Tage Paris".
It talks about how things can change depending on the context, when/ 
while nobody expects it (the second part of the phrase is important!)

here we go:

On Oct 11, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Stefan Löffler wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 2009-10-10 17:41, Thomas Floeren wrote:
>> thanks for taking in account my "efforts"
>
> Sure, any time. Thanks again for them (your efforts).
> BTW: This was how I got to "developing" Tw, too. The original
> translation was not mine, I started somewhere in the middle adding new
> translations as they appeared.
>
>
>>> 3) "No recent search strings" / "Keine zuletzt verwendeten
>>> Suchausdrücke" / "Keine zuletzt verwendeten Suchen"
>>> I have no idea if the word "Suchausdrücke" exists officially or not.
>>> IMO, "Suchausdrücke" sounds better than "Suchen", though.  
>>> Actually, it's
>>> not the searches that are saved, it's the search strings. Comments?
>>>
>> Well, the point is simply that "Suchausdrücke" sounds like a really
>> complicated thing;
>> but if you do a search for a simple word like "customise" to have it
>> replaced by "customize",
>> this is - in my understanding - a simple "Suche". Check: What was the
>> "Suche"? The Suche
>> was "custonise". What was the "Suchausdruck"? The Suchausdruck was:
>> Just the searched word, no conditionals etc.
>> "Suche" imo is more adequat to represent the thing we are asking for:
>> The *last search event* (and not the last used search expression, may
>> it has been a regex
>> or something differnet). No need to complicate the things  
>> artifically ;)
>
> Good point. But AFAIK, it's really only the search string that is  
> saved,
> without the settings.
> In any case, shouldn't it be something like "letzte Suchen" instead of
> "zuletzt verwendete Suchen"? (though "Suchen" in this form still  
> sounds
> odd to me)
>
IMO: As you already affirmed "Suchen" may be ambiguous. [lexikalisch/ 
morphologisch] "Suche"
is much more correct then "Suchausdruck". Taking in acount this  
ambiguity
(I hope I wrote the word correctly …), I think that the more explicit
expression "zuletzt verwendete Suchen" can be helpful to aid less- 
experienced
users. But I agree with you, "letzte Suchen" is more accurate;
but maybe a bit more opaque to the new-user then "zuletzt verwendete
Suchen". Thats why I decided for the explicit form.

>
>>> 6) "Tile" / "Kacheln" / "Verteilen"
>>> IIRC, the majority voted for "Kacheln" (see my summary post)
>>>
>> This is a rather complicated stuff. Stay with "Kacheln" if you like,
>> it's not bad. But just think of what is happening and you will
>> see that the windows are rather 'verteiled'. Why? "Kacheln" means
>> just to distribute all the windows in order to achieve a well  
>> distributed
>> Mosaik-like arrangement, all over the surface. This is not the case.
>
> Well, it gets close (to evenly distributing the windows over the
> surface), IMO. But we had that discussion already ;).
>
This is funny. There have been so many accords for so many different
things, pOvs etc. But just not for the putain "kacheln" :)

OK: It is not really important for the translation; both translations  
are quite near;
but: [in german, sorry] "Kacheln zielt darauf ab, ein bestimmtes 2D-Feld
*komplett* auszulegen. Verteilen hingegen zielt daaruf ab, Vorhandenes
im gegebenen Feld zu verteilen/einzusetzen.
Um ein Beispiel (wiedermal) zu bringen: Der Bildschirmschoner vom  
MacOS kachelt,
wenn du ihn entsprechend einstellst ...... Das gibts sicher
auch für Windows/Linux, so dass mans nachvollziehen kann, was "Kacheln"
bedeutet :)

>
>>> 8) "Subset" / "Untermenge" / "Subset"
>>> You said that this is a fixed term. I've never heard it before, so  
>>> if
>>> someone could confirm this? To clarify: "subset" means that only  
>>> some
>>> glyphs of a font are embedded in the document (instead of all the
>>> glyphs/the whole font). In fact, I'd favor the opposite version
>>> ("Komplett"), but that's not the way the program works,  
>>> unfortunately.
>>>
>> I got you, but I think it doesnt matter. If the person in question  
>> knows
>> what "subset" means he/she will proceed accordingly.
>> If the person does not understand subset, he/she won't understand
>> "Untermenge"
>> either. So: the term "Subset" is well defined and we shouldnt
>> unnessesarily
>> occupie a still libre european term for this.
>
> We went with "teilweise" here. According to the poppler docs, this  
> flag
> is only set for embedded fonts, in which case this should result in
> "teilweise engebettet".
>
>>> 11) "Editor defaults" / "Editor Standardeinstellungen" /
>>> "Standard-Editoreinstellungen"
>>> I'd like to submit "Standardeinstellungen für den Editor" for
>>> consideration.
>>>
>> Well, hande it as you want, but in German you have to connect  
>> composed
>> words
>> always with a hyphen (alternatinely you write them together). This is
>> nothing new
>> of the reformed orthography, this has always been so. And btw it has
>> its sense.
>
> Actually, I once read that (overuse of) the hyphen is actually
> considered bad style. I guess it was in "Der Dativ ist dem Genetiv  
> sein
> Tod" by Bastian Sick or one if its sequels. In his opinion, words that
> form a single term should be written together, as the hyphen would
> rather act as a "separator" than as a "connector". But I guess these  
> are
> finenesses that we can worry about once the rest of the translations  
> are
> perfect ;).
>

>>> Concerning your here above mentioned article: as I told you:  
>>> connect the
composite words "como dios manda". Composed words via "hyphenation"  
were always a ugly solution,
this is nothing new. But don't do one thing: In English you can  
"allocate"
one word beneath\after the other. This works because in English you  
dispose of different semantic
"measures/manners" to make one syntax different from another; to  
"mark" it.
In German we have completely different syntactical and morphological  
manners.

If this interests you, mail me, otherwise

Have a good night

Grüße/Cheers
Tom









StefanOn Oct 11, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Stefan Löffler wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 2009-10-10 17:41, Thomas Floeren wrote:
>> thanks for taking in account my "efforts"
>
> Sure, any time. Thanks again for them (your efforts).
> BTW: This was how I got to "developing" Tw, too. The original
> translation was not mine, I started somewhere in the middle adding new
> translations as they appeared.
>
>> On Oct 8, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Stefan Löffler wrote:
>>>
>>> Thomas Floeren schrieb:
>>>> Some (few) entries were not editable (File ... trans not readable).
>>>
>>> I don't quite understand how/which. If you could point me at a  
>>> specific
>>> entry (with the context and the source text)...
>>>
>> For example in the "ReplaceDialog" context the strings from "wrap
>> around" to "Regular expressions".
>> They were grayed out and had the above mentioned comment. I'll send
>> you a screenshot of this.
>
> OK, I saw them too. They seem to be left-overs from earlier versions.
> The source string apparently is no longer used in the code (at least I
> don't see any context). In the XML code, they are marked as  
> "obsolete".
> So there's no need to worry about them. I'd assume that they should be
> removed from the .ts file during the update process. If they are not
> (and the number of these strings gets too large) we'll just have to
> remove them from the XML code by hand (or script).
>
>>> 3) "No recent search strings" / "Keine zuletzt verwendeten
>>> Suchausdrücke" / "Keine zuletzt verwendeten Suchen"
>>> I have no idea if the word "Suchausdrücke" exists officially or not.
>>> IMO, "Suchausdrücke" sounds better than "Suchen", though.  
>>> Actually, it's
>>> not the searches that are saved, it's the search strings. Comments?
>>>
>> Well, the point is simply that "Suchausdrücke" sounds like a really
>> complicated thing;
>> but if you do a search for a simple word like "customise" to have it
>> replaced by "customize",
>> this is - in my understanding - a simple "Suche". Check: What was the
>> "Suche"? The Suche
>> was "custonise". What was the "Suchausdruck"? The Suchausdruck was:
>> Just the searched word, no conditionals etc.
>> "Suche" imo is more adequat to represent the thing we are asking for:
>> The *last search event* (and not the last used search expression, may
>> it has been a regex
>> or something differnet). No need to complicate the things  
>> artifically ;)
>
> Good point. But AFAIK, it's really only the search string that is  
> saved,
> without the settings.
> In any case, shouldn't it be something like "letzte Suchen" instead of
> "zuletzt verwendete Suchen"? (though "Suchen" in this form still  
> sounds
> odd to me)
>
>>> 4) "Fit to Width" / "In Breite einpassen" / "In der Breite  
>>> einpassen"
>>> I didn't like the original, but I'm not 100% comfortable with your
>>> suggestion, either. Somehow, it all cries "in welcher 'Breite'?"  
>>> for me.
>>> Maybe "An Fensterbreite anpassen"? Suggestions?
>>>
>> This sounds really great to me. Just one suggestion: "Fensterbreite",
>> nothing more
>
> Hm, interesting idea. I guess it would depend on the context, whether
> it's clear that it actually means "adjusting the zoom factor such that
> the document fits the width of the window".
>
>>> 5) I noticed you added a space in front of each "...". Is there a
>>> particular reason for this (style guidelines or something)?
>>>
>> Ahem, it is common understanding, I think. The dots have a specific
>> signification;
>> they siginifate ellipsis, normally. So: if you want to indicate an
>> ellipsis for a word
>> you add "..." to the word; if you want to indicate an ellipsis for  
>> the
>> phrase
>> you add an " ..." to the phrase.
>> Example: You want to say "customizing", "customization", "customize"
>> e.g. in one word
>> you would say "customi..."
>> But if you want to say "customize your outfit", "customize the
>> application" etc.
>> in one phrase you say "customize ..."
>> The space makes the difference between word and phrase.
>> The ellipsis without space completes the word, the ellipsis with  
>> space
>> completes the phrase.
>
> Sounds reasonable :). I guess I only thought about the English source
> and common translations of interfaces that don't use the space. But  
> your
> reasoning is flawless.
>
>>> 6) "Tile" / "Kacheln" / "Verteilen"
>>> IIRC, the majority voted for "Kacheln" (see my summary post)
>>>
>> This is a rather complicated stuff. Stay with "Kacheln" if you like,
>> it's not bad. But just think of what is happening and you will
>> see that the windows are rather 'verteiled'. Why? "Kacheln" means
>> just to distribute all the windows in order to achieve a well  
>> distributed
>> Mosaik-like arrangement, all over the surface. This is not the case.
>
> Well, it gets close (to evenly distributing the windows over the
> surface), IMO. But we had that discussion already ;).
>
>>> 7) "&Wrap around" / "Am &Anfang fortfahren, wenn das Ende
>>> erreicht ist" / "Am &Anfang fortfahren"
>>> It's a lot better (more concise) now. Still, I'd like to make a  
>>> call for
>>> more suggestions because when searching backwards, it doesn't  
>>> actually
>>> continue from the beginning. Ideas anyone?
>>>
>> When searching backwards, it should search backwards, no? Till the
>> start of the document, but no wrap? So, everything is ok(?)
>
> I'd assume (at least from the English source string) that the  
> following
> happens when you check "backwards":
> It searches upwards until it reaches the beginning of the document
> It jumps to the end of the document
> It continues the search upwards
>
> But then again this may not be what is actually implemented. I guess  
> I'd
> have to dig into this a little more.
>
>>> 8) "Subset" / "Untermenge" / "Subset"
>>> You said that this is a fixed term. I've never heard it before, so  
>>> if
>>> someone could confirm this? To clarify: "subset" means that only  
>>> some
>>> glyphs of a font are embedded in the document (instead of all the
>>> glyphs/the whole font). In fact, I'd favor the opposite version
>>> ("Komplett"), but that's not the way the program works,  
>>> unfortunately.
>>>
>> I got you, but I think it doesnt matter. If the person in question  
>> knows
>> what "subset" means he/she will proceed accordingly.
>> If the person does not understand subset, he/she won't understand
>> "Untermenge"
>> either. So: the term "Subset" is well defined and we shouldnt
>> unnessesarily
>> occupie a still libre european term for this.
>
> We went with "teilweise" here. According to the poppler docs, this  
> flag
> is only set for embedded fonts, in which case this should result in
> "teilweise engebettet".
>
>>> 11) "Editor defaults" / "Editor Standardeinstellungen" /
>>> "Standard-Editoreinstellungen"
>>> I'd like to submit "Standardeinstellungen für den Editor" for
>>> consideration.
>>>
>> Well, hande it as you want, but in German you have to connect  
>> composed
>> words
>> always with a hyphen (alternatinely you write them together). This is
>> nothing new
>> of the reformed orthography, this has always been so. And btw it has
>> its sense.
>
> Actually, I once read that (overuse of) the hyphen is actually
> considered bad style. I guess it was in "Der Dativ ist dem Genetiv  
> sein
> Tod" by Bastian Sick or one if its sequels. In his opinion, words that
> form a single term should be written together, as the hyphen would
> rather act as a "separator" than as a "connector". But I guess these  
> are
> finenesses that we can worry about once the rest of the translations  
> are
> perfect ;).
>
>>> 16) You should add yourself to the translators in the about  
>>> dialog ;).
>>>
>>> Phew, sorry for the number of comments. But you asked for it ;).
>>>
>> I did ask for it? Well, add me to the list of correctors.
>
> Yep, you did ;). I noticed that Jonathan added you.
>
>> As I said already in the mail to you: The translation is quite good.
>> But there wasn't any reason to not eliminate the small issues.
>
> I fully agree.
>
>> To be sincere: As I saw the first (first to me) translation of this
>> handy program, with such hammers like "Übersetzen" and other less
>> grave issuses
>> I told to myself:
>>
>> Fine, now somebody has done a really simple editor with preview and  
>> all,
>> they are going to upload it to TeXlive09, it has chances to encourage
>> people
>> to use ConTeXt/LaTeX.
>> ... and then german users find this lousy localization.
>>
>> But I was wrong
>>
>>
>> But nevertheless I think we should also pay attention to the "small
>> details"
>> which make a good translation, in the end.
>
> I fully agree again.
>
> Cheers,
> Stefan