Changes between Version 4 and Version 5 of Ticket #21720, comment 6
- Timestamp:
- 2021-12-31T07:28:28+01:00 (2 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #21720, comment 6
v4 v5 58 58 > * "JOSM incorrectly considers Vietnamese to lack a plural grammatical form." → JOSM does not define something itself. We take the plural forms from Launchpad and the definition for "vi" is this: https://translations.launchpad.net/+languages/vi which is also reflected in any po-file (Plural-Forms: nplurals=1; plural=0;). 59 59 60 I’m referring to [[https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/src/org/openstreetmap/josm/tools/I18n.java?rev=17660#L143|this line]] in the JOSM codebase that gives Vietnamese only one grammatical number form. Vietnamese does indeed make a grammatical distinction between singular and plural using extra plural-marking words, even if it doesn’t inflect the noun itself for plural number. You can read about it in [[https://books.google.com/books?id=2zP3syOt5YQC&pg=PA70|this introductory grammar textbook]] or [[https://books.google.com/books?id=XN7SHNeZ_ksC&pg=PA179|this academic reference]]. As it is, some strings would have to put ''(các)'' and ''(những)'' in parentheses, akin to writing “way(s)” in English.60 I’m referring to [[https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/src/org/openstreetmap/josm/tools/I18n.java?rev=17660#L143|this line]] in the JOSM codebase that gives Vietnamese only one grammatical number form. Vietnamese does indeed make a grammatical distinction between singular and plural using extra plural-marking words, even if it doesn’t inflect the noun itself for plural number. You can read about it in [[https://books.google.com/books?id=2zP3syOt5YQC&pg=PA70|this introductory grammar textbook]] or [[https://books.google.com/books?id=XN7SHNeZ_ksC&pg=PA179|this academic reference]]. As it is, we would have to write ''(các) lối này'' and ''(những) người này'' in parentheses, akin to writing “this/these way(s)” or “this person/these people” in English. 61 61 62 62 Launchpad probably got the incorrect plural form data from CLDR, which has [[https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/CLDR-14273|a known issue]] in this regard. It’s understandable that JOSM would be unable to fix the plural setting independently of its CLDR-based translation platform. iD is also in the same situation with Transifex. So I’m not requesting that JOSM fix the plural setting just yet, even though it does contribute to the general brokenness of the localization.
