[libreoffice-l10n] Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Re: [libreoffice-l10n] n’t → n't

2014-11-30 13:01 GMT+01:00 Martin Srebotnjak <miles@filmsi.net>:

> Hi, Jesper,
>
> in LO Pootle 135 translation teams are stated. If we take out about 20
> teams with really scarce tranlations, that means 115 teams.
>
> 5 changed strings in English UI x 115 = 575 changed strings in
> localization po files to re-translate
> 115 people being affected by this change.
Very good with that type of facts. Thank you. I wonder how many changed or
new strings there were for instance from 4.3 to 4.4, for comparison?
Relative numbers are always better, to put things into perspective. My
guess, as I do not have the numbers and do not know how to find them, is
perhaps 500 changes? Given that guess, that would be 5 changes (well,
actually 12, as the 5 were only "don't") compared to 500 changes, or around
2 % of the total work.

But how come we would have to retranslate? Is there really no technical way
to make a change in the English string that is known to be purely a
correction to the English string with no effect on the translation? That
seems odd to me – but of course I accept that not everything is the way we
wish and that everything takes work to make. It just seems somewhat viable
to find a solution to avoid disturbing 115 people whenever a typo is found
in the English strings. It must have happened several times before.


> I am not aggressive and do not fight,

Well, I disagree on that. You said: "a fork of LibreOffice would be viable,
named PureOffice". I might have misunderstood, but I took that as sarcasm,
and I see sarcasm (as opposed to irony) as aggression or hurtful emotional
violence, in an attempt to redicule the other party.

It is very possible to state one's opinions without resorting to that.


> just state my views, which is the corner stone of democracy and
> open-source mantra, I guess.

I absolutely agree! I have never said and never believed that one's views
should not be stated – on the contrary!

What I was talking about is the way they are stated. I believe they should
be stated simply as views, but without putting other people down because
they have differing views (as politicians so often do, which is why we are
all tired of them).

It is never necessary to put other people down because of their views. Just
state your own view without putting other views down. That is what I am
saying.


> And it is my deep conviction that sarcasm should not be banned,

Well, we disagree on that. As I said, I see it as a form of emotional
violence (as opposed to irony), and I really don't like that. I believe it
is counter-productive and harmful. Maybe it shouldn't be directly banned,
but I do believe it should be very minimized when speaking in a large forum
like this. Just like other offensive ways of speaking are not welcome (like
"f... you, you little s...!" :-)).


> it is not illegal

I never said it was illegal, and I know of no countries where it is.


> and it sometimes does put problems into perspective in a very direct and
> fast way - so it can be quite useful.

Oh definitely, yes, and the same can be said about other types of violence
(as I still believe it is): Definitely useful and powerful for the one
using it, but also definitely hurtful for the victim. And I do not find
personal usefulness with disregard to the victim to be a sufficient reason
to actually use it. I do believe in staying with rationality and respect. I
simply don't believe in violence, neither physical nor emotional (except
perhaps for extreme and very rare cases for immediate defence against
aggression).

But, as I said, I believe very much in stating one's opinions and that all
opinions are welcome. But respecting other's opinions without putting them
down is an integral part of that, and sarcasm and other forms of emotional
violence do have the effect of suppressing other people's views, as they
become afraid of stating their opinion if it can result in emotional
violence against them. That is exactly what is used by the leaders of
oppressive political systems: They use physical and emotional violence to
suppress people from expressing their views. For those leaders, it is very
efficient, as you said, but for democracy and openness I really cannot see
how it is helpful.

Or did you mean that sarcasm is good both for the one using it and for the
target? That the target will also find it is a good and constructive way of
communicating? Do you think the use of sarcasm increases or lowers the
aggression or amount of stress in the target?


> Lp, m.
Best regards,
Jesper

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: l10n+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/l10n/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted