Follow-up Comment #14, bug #63921 (group groff): [comment #13 commentaire #13 :] > [comment #12 comment #12:] > > Nice. About the changes: > "Tabla" -> "Cuadro" : "Tabla" is a specific kind of "Cuadro", so I'd say this > is better. > "Fichero" -> "Archivo" : In Spain we use these terms interchangeably all the > time. Maybe "Fichero" is used more frequently, as the term is only used to > describe either a piece of furniture or a file, but this hardly matters. > > However, I wouldn't change the following: > letns!12 "Resumen solo para" -> "Resumen s\[o ']lo para" : The acute accent > was used to avoid ambiguities when using "solo", but I'd say that the > sentence isn't ambiguous, besides, > [https://www.rae.es/espanol-al-dia/el-adverbio-solo-y-los-pronombres-demostrativos-sin-tilde > RAE forbids its usage].
It has always seemed to me that the new "rule" is but a concession to people who failed to comply, for whatever reason, with the previous one... but anyway, solo escribe solamente, and that's it. > man-section3 "Manual de funciones de la liberia" -> "Manual de funciones de > la biblioteca" : Even though the "correct" translation for "library" would > indeed be "biblioteca", I'd argue that "librería" is better because of its > widely adopted usage. > [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblioteca_(inform%C3%A1tica)#Nota_terminol%C3%B3gica > This is also stated in the Wikipedia page]. In academic contexts I've heard > "librería" being used hundreds of times, while "biblioteca" I've only heard > once or twice; personally, if I saw "biblioteca" in a man page I'd be > initially confused as to what it means. > That "wide adoption" is, indeed, questionable: many times my eyes and ears are hurt by people _widely_ translating "by default" as "por defecto". In fact, for instance, values are _not_ assigned "por defecto", but "por omisión": they're not "defective" values, but values assigned by the programmer in absence ("por omisión") of values provided by the user. Besides, I fear that expressions such as "librería de comandos" are odd, and it seems to me that the wikipedia writers tend to agree with me. So, no: in this case I hold my ground, and "biblioteca" must remain. > > I did not mention the hyphenation patterns in my previous comment as Branden > had already made allusion to them. > If you both think this is an improvement (and Branden probably more qualified > than I when it comes to hyphenation patterns) I'm completely fine with it. My main concerns with the current hyphenation patterns file are memory and performance: one of the reasons why DEKTeX ("Classical" in many people's parlance) recommended the use of format files, and discouraged iniTeX's processing hyphenation patterns on every run, was that the processing of these hyphenation patterns took too much time and computing power in early machines. Modern LuaTeX, for instance, does not have that restriction, as modern machines can cope with the demands of larger data processing. I don't know the internals of groff, so I cannot tell if a simpler set of hyphenation patterns improves performance or prevents memory loss. Branden and the other maintainers may make a better informed decision. Besides that, it seems to me that Beccari has proven satisfactorily that in the case of some Romance languages hyphenation based on consonants is good enough: his patterns for Italian are the ones distributed even today for TeX and groff. I may upload a revised version of the _es.tmac.diff_ file once we reach some agreement on these matters, along with a revised version of the simpler hyphenation patterns, with some comments detailing the sources, and revised licensing terms to comply with GNU requirements, if you guys agree. Cheers, _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63921> _______________________________________________ Message posté via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
