Shoutbox

could you give me the source sow I can make an english - dutch, dutch - english version?

quote:

---

Originally posted by spastje
give me the source sow I can make an english - dutch, dutch - english version

---

If you wish to translate Messenger Plus! in Dutch, don't bother: there is already a very good Dutch translation available.

If you wish to translate this program, which is used to translate Messenger Plus! in other languages, don't bother either: all translators translate from English to their native language, so this program doesn't need a translation

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tochjo
If you wish to translate this program, which is used to translate Messenger Plus! in other languages, don't bother either: all translators translate from English to their native language, so this program doesn't need a translation

---

yup.

and btw, the source is not available. sorry.

Whenever ampersands, the &'s, appear in the original text-file, it should also be included in the translation. And therefore I think an 'ampersand alert' feature would improve the program, by making sure that translators do not forget to do them. A message box and a sound could inform the translator, when he is leaving the subsection, that no ampersand has been placed.

I've recently seen a language-file, where a translator put the percentage-symbol, the %, instead of the ampersand (an honest mistake, since the symbols are juxtaposed, side by side, on the keyboard). With an ampersand alert feature utilized, this would not happen, since the translator would be made aware of the issue.


Some trivia:

The symbol [&] is an abbreviated combination of the letters "et", the Roman word for "and". Its name is derived from a spoken form of the phrase "and per se and".

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
I've recently seen a language-file, where a translator put the percentage-symbol, the %, instead of the ampersand (an honest mistake, since the symbols are juxtaposed, side by side, on the keyboard).

---

(no longer a forgiving mistake, though, when a translator consistently switches &'s for %'s and vice versa, like one piece of work that was handed in to me )

I agree that a simple ampersand alert would be useful, altough I must point out that an ampersand collision alert would be 0wnage in thet respect.
(yes, I do realize that this would implicate the need for frequent updates of the software, and require the software to understand Plus!' menu systems and not just its language files)

//Zreeeeeed

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
Whenever ampersands, the &'s, appear in the original text-file, it should also be included in the translation.

---

The program can't just place &s automatically in the translated text because of the following reasons:
Where would it put the &s? At the same letter than the english ones? That doesn't work, because the translated text may not contain the english letter with the &, or that letter may not the the most adequate for placing the &. Also, there are keys in the english translation where the & is missing or conflicts with another key.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
And therefore I think an 'ampersand alert' feature would improve the program, by making sure that translators do not forget to do them.

---

Texts that require an & are usually shot texts, so at the same time you're translating them, you should notice the & in the english translation and inmediately add it to your translation. IMO, a message box and/or a sound if the & is missing would be quite annoying. (at the end, the translator may decide to not add the &, it's up to him/her)

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
I've recently seen a language-file, where a translator put the percentage-symbol, the %, instead of the ampersand

---

and how could the program distinguish if the translator wanted to put the % or made a mistake and s/he meant & ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZrednaZ
I agree that a simple ampersand alert would be useful

---

maybe there could be an option that will check for missing &, but not in real time while your translating

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZrednaZ
altough I must point out that an ampersand collision alert would be 0wnage in thet respect.
(yes, I do realize that this would implicate the need for frequent updates of the software, and require the software to understand Plus!' menu systems and not just its language files)

---

& collition would be a great improvment, but i see several disadvantadges:
The program sould be upgraded very (too much) frequently.
It should be upgraded before Patchou sends us the beta to translate, so first he should send me the beta, I upgrade the program and then we all translate... too complex.
And there are keys that are used in sereval menus, so they & may cause a collition in different menus (or windows)... and that is quite complex to implement.

I've been misunderstood. All your points are, seen isolated from my suggestion, ok. But:

All I wanted was a feature that the translator could turn on if he wanted to, thus making some of your objections irrellevant. A simple feature. No boxes would be required, instead the small picture assigned to the subsection (at the left side of the screen) could be slightly altered (if the feature was turned on), e.g. showing a small ampersand with a red X on it.

I never wanted the feature to be able to detect other symbols, like the %, and it is quite irrellevant, since no presence of symbols would chance the subsection's status as "containing ampersand" or "not containing ampersand". If the feature was included, it would mark translations without ampersands (where the original subsections contained ampersands), no matter whether or not the subsection contained other symbols.

And - no, it would not require any updates at all. If the program is able to detect &'s, that would be all:

Feature on? 1
Are there &'s in the original file? 1
Are there &'s in the translation? 0.
Red light and cross on.
Return.

Feature on? 0
End.

(The control could be carried out whenever a subsection was left by the translator; thus not in real-time. Alternatively, the feature could be just a button that would start a check-up of the entire translation, and then mark subsections in the overview window.)

Therefore, if the feature can be programmed, it would have no downsides. If it can't, well.. then it just can't.

Dismissing this is a violation of the basic rules based on Murphy's Law. But of course, the program wouldn't be able to place the ampersands itself; it would just make it less likely that they were not placed, and thus were missing in the sent-in translation. Errors would still be possible.

It is by no means as easy as you think. Ampersand collision checking is very complex. Even checking if an ampersand is missing or not is very complex. You're forgetting that the English translation often has no ampersands where ampersands could be used, etc... Every possible key has to be indexed and connected to the type of control and dialog where it is used (or rather controls, as many keys have multiple uses, and vice versa) Also, the English original translation isn't without it's errors...

Believe me, the fastest and most correct way of ampersand checking atm is by a human using a simple texteditor!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
if the feature can be programmed, it would have no downsides.

---

It would have many downsides. Such a feature is NOT to be taken as granted. Human control and interpretation IS needed.

Be very carefull with trusting such features/programs. I see some translators here only trusting on Choli's application to do their stuff because it is so "easy". This is however a very bad use of the program.

The program is NOT meant to do full translations. It is meant as an aid to do some quick checking and quick translating. And it is excellent for that. However, translations which are made only with Choli's translator can easly be picked out because they are often full of errors and inconsistencies. Every key has to be manually checked within Messenger Plus!, consistency is to be taken in account, etc... etc...

The best tool to do a good translation is still notepad or similar. Choli's translator or any other similar program are simply made to aid, not to take over the translation-process...



PS: I didn't wanted to bring this in public yet (although I already told some people about it and hinted about it here and there), but I'm currently developping a big validation program. Checking for ampersand collisions will be one of it's many features. But this program will not be ready for a long time. It IS a very complex matter to check human language and the many mistakes a human can make, with programming code... Yep, it is in this region that you'll step when making something like this. But I certainly don't wanna call it AI though, although it has some small aspects of it...

The only problem I have atm is lack of time, and I need to finish some other stuff first. But I promise that this validator will come and it will have some pretty cool stuff!

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
It is by no means as easy as you think. Ampersand collision checking is very complex.

---

We don't think it's easy. No-one ever suggested it would be easy to maintain a program with such a feature.

However, I don't see one reason why a feature that simply points out inconsistencies would be a problem. Sure there may be some cases where the English version has ampersands and the translated version isn't supposed to, but upon getting notified of the ampersand difference the translator would be able to take this into account and NOT make the correction. But hey, most of the time ampersand placement is similar to the English version, right? So I can't say I agree that it would be faster to check the whole thing manually.

Oh, and I have to disagree with the rest, too...
In my view, there's no reason why you shouldn't use Choli's translator as your primary tool. For one thing it lets you compare the translated text to the original text, so the task of checking whether your text is getting too long becomes much easier.

I do use Notepad as a secondary tool for:
1) moving/deleting entire sections or keys
2) reading Patchou's comments to each section

These are things you can't do with Choli's proram. Othewise it's a fine primary tool IMO!

"It is by no means as easy as you think. Ampersand collision checking is very complex. Even checking if an ampersand is missing or not is very complex."

I never protested against that. In fact, I said that I didn't know whether or not the feature could be programmed.

"Such a feature is not to be taken as granted. Human control and interpretation IS needed."

I never asserted that human control wasn't needed. In fact, I said that it would not make errors disappear.

"Be very carefull with trusting such features/programs. I see some translators here only trusting on Choli's application to do their stuff because it is so "easy". This is however a very bad use of the program."

It may well be, yet I'm not adressing the "Choli/.txt"-problem, I'm merely making a suggestion to aid those who are using Choli's translator. I'm not saying that everyone should use it. Why should I?

"The program is NOT meant to do full translations. It is meant as an aid to do some quick checking and quick translating. And it is excellent for that. However, translations which are made only with Choli's translator can easly be picked out because they are often full of errors and inconsistencies. Every key has to be manually checked within Messenger Plus!, consistency is to be taken in account, etc... etc..."

You're asserting that translations made with the translator are always faulty? I don't think that's true. However, I can easily see why you could come to that conclusion; because it seems quite obvious that lazy translators will be more likely to use the program than the traditionalistic, hard-working translators. But many of these lazy translators will do poor translations no matter what method they use. If the translator pays attention, Choli's translator will be as useful as the method you're currently defending, even though no one (no one here, at least) has attacked it. It shows the same things as the textfile-method contains.

"The best tool to do a good translation is still notepad or similar. Choli's translator or any other similar program are simply made to aid, not to take over the translation-process..."

I guess you're trying to do an information campaign here. But doesn't that belong in its own thread, where it would be read by those who need to be adressed? And not here, as a reply to my thread, which makes it seem like a weird pseudo-attack on a personal opinion that was never uttered?