Issue 128288 - "Edit" menu items: "Undo","Redo" - linguistic difference in AOO components
Summary: "Edit" menu items: "Undo","Redo" - linguistic difference in AOO components
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: General
Classification: Code
Component: ui (show other issues)
Version: 4.1.7
Hardware: All All
: P5 (lowest) Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: 4.2.0
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2020-02-11 21:41 UTC by Czesław Wolański
Modified: 2020-02-16 21:25 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments
Edit menu in AOO, 5 languages (523.40 KB, image/jpeg)
2020-02-11 21:41 UTC, Czesław Wolański
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description Czesław Wolański 2020-02-11 21:41:58 UTC
Created attachment 86832 [details]
Edit menu in AOO, 5 languages

This issue concerns 5 languange versions (maybe more). Therefore I marked it as "General".

Before you read any further you may take a look at attached image - it helps to see what it is all about (on the left - good, on the right - bad)

In English version in "Edit" menu first two items are: "Undo" and "Redo". That naming convention is maintained across all AOO components. 
German version items: "Rückgängig" and "Wiederherstellen" are present in all AOO components too.

Icons for both items in all AOO components are - respectively - the same.

Bearing that in mind, one starts to wonder why in three other versions, namely French, Polish and Russian, aforesaid naming convention is not observed.


Please compare Menu > Edit (in Writer, Calc, Impress, Draw and Math)
and - for example - Menu > Tables > Create Table in Design View...
(in Base).


FRENCH (two different verbs)
- in Writer, Calc, Impress, Draw and Math:  "Défaire", "Refaire"
- in Base: "Annuler", "Rétablir".

POLISH (one different verb)
- in Writer, Calc, Impress, Draw and Math: "Cofnij", "Ponów"
- in Base: "Cofnij", "Przywróć"

RUSSIAN (noun vs verb, noun and different verb)
- in Writer, Calc, Impress, Draw and Math: "Oтменa", "Возврат"
- in Base: "Oтменить", "Восстановить"


I certainly do not intend to lecture any native speaker on how to translate - except maybe for Poles... 
Yet at the moment fail to see why uniform approach cannot be applied, even if this is a really trivial issue.
Comment 1 Matthias Seidel 2020-02-11 21:53:42 UTC
These translation issues should really be discussed on the localization mailing list.

Please consider to subscribe to the l10n mailing list:

https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html#localization-mailing-list-public

Thanks!
Comment 2 Matthias Seidel 2020-02-12 20:26:12 UTC
Fixed in Pootle for Polish now:

https://translate-upgrade.apache.org/pl/aoo40/translate/dbaccess/source/ui/misc.po#unit=14637236
Comment 3 Maciej Nux Jaros 2020-02-16 21:05:21 UTC
"Przywróć" is a more of a programmers term. So in the context of database operations I guess that makes sense. It's definitely not an error in translation. In that context "Przywróć" and "Ponów" has exactly the same meaning.

But yes, uniformity is user-friendly, so the change is fine.

Note that the problem in keeping the uniformity is that you don't see such terms connected with each other. It's usually very hard to figure out the context and so translating is hard.

What I'm saying is that this is NOT a trivial issue. It's only trivial when you find it ;-)
Comment 4 Czesław Wolański 2020-02-16 21:25:28 UTC
(In reply to Maciej Nux Jaros from comment #3)
> "Przywróć" is a more of a programmers term. So in the context of database
> operations I guess that makes sense. It's definitely not an error in
> translation. In that context "Przywróć" and "Ponów" has exactly the same
> meaning.
> 
> But yes, uniformity is user-friendly, so the change is fine.
> 
> Note that the problem in keeping the uniformity is that you don't see such
> terms connected with each other. It's usually very hard to figure out the
> context and so translating is hard.
> 
> What I'm saying is that this is NOT a trivial issue. It's only trivial when
> you find it ;-)



Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.
Always keen to learn something new.

Do you remember "Issue 57839 - Value of the function is out of scope."?

And these words: "but it is a variable for me and I
should be right - I'm the user ;>.".

Chapeau bas!