Re: [Libreoffice] childs -> children

I believe Child is simply an English borrowed word.  "Childs" is
not German, and since it is borrowed from English, I believe it is
also just as correct German to use Children instead of Childs.

Therefore, the change does not break the German, and shouldn't
break any decent translator.  I believe these changes are appropriate
in English and German texts.

Mike

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Stefan Knorr (Astron)
<heinzlesspam@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tor, Mike,
>
> > And what about German comments like "wird gesetzt, wenn
> > RequestingChilds keine Childs gestzt hat" , is the word "Childs"
> > really English there? Or just an English loan-word but written
> > according to German rules (i.e. with initial capital), and inflected
> > according to German rules?
>
> Hm, while I think it is unnecessary to replace "childs" with
> "children" in German comments (we have to translate these later anyway
> and the translator hopefully knows the correct plural of "child"), I
> wouldn't say "childs" is an actual loan-word, I think the original
> commenter just wanted to use the English word, because it also appears
> in the code.
> Btw: the particular comment you (Tor) refer to translates to "Is set
> if RequestingChilds hasn't set any children."
>
> However, there are examples, where the "s" in "childs" is a genitive "s", as in:
> -            // Setzen des Childs, ueber Referenz, um die PagePos zu erhalten
> +            // Setzen des Children, ueber Referenz, um die PagePos zu erhalten
>
> or
>
> -            // Position des Childs nach Verschieben anpassen
> +            // Position des Children nach Verschieben anpassen
>
>
> In these cases, Mike's edits are nonsense and convert a single "Child"
> into multiple "Children."
>
> Regards,
>
> Astron.