aliens

Author Topic: The new system can be destructive for the translation!  (Read 13177 times)

Offline Falko

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 799
    • View Profile
Re: The new system can be destructive for the translation!
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2014, 03:34:44 pm »
This would be the best way to resolve issues with translations. Let's hope @SupSuper heard us  :)
wait a moment
i have no idea what the scope of these options are
worst case these is a global setting for all languages:
1. who sets the translators do we give SupSuper the job of determinig who the best polish/ estonian/ chinise/ spanish translators are? i for one would prefer supsuper doing coding instead of managing this clusterf@~£$%.
2. does creating restrictions "help" in getting new translators for other languages?

what i would like to see:

some export options without involvment of the admin
e.g.: i like translations from X and Y but not Z so i want my language file generated by values that X/Y created/edited/voted for if X/Y created/edited/voted different versions i take that with the most common votes (or X >Y)

also i rarely translate stuff (1. because others do it faster than me, 2. i myself play in en-gb so i dont miss it) but the edit interface from a tranlator perspective sucks in my opinion i would like to see the "strings added since last visit" "change in strings i [edited/voted on/..] "

Offline Yankes

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 2765
    • View Profile
Re: The new system can be destructive for the translation!
« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2014, 09:18:02 pm »
Quote
1. who sets the translators do we give SupSuper the job of determinig who the best polish/ estonian/ chinise/ spanish translators are? i for one would prefer supsuper doing coding instead of managing this clusterf@~£$%.
2. does creating restrictions "help" in getting new translators for other languages?
Only way I see to chose them, is gather all people using that language in this forum. Then they should chose one person that will be responsible for transitional. If they can't decide, then person will be chose based on contribution to openxcom (this can be done by SupSuper).

This can work for new languages too, because "all people" will be only one person. Choosing form set of one element is trivial :)
If more people appear and they aren't happy with that translation then we going back to previous point.

Offline Falko

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 799
    • View Profile
Re: The new system can be destructive for the translation!
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2014, 10:28:26 pm »
and we choose in the forum by voting and everybody gets a vote? SCNR :)
yeah i like to use the pessimist viewpoint so one can spot possible problems in advance
i do not want to discourage anybody to find a solution hopefully one that works for language-translations with more than this one problem of "too many opinions"

Offline Sturm

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: The new system can be destructive for the translation!
« Reply #18 on: September 06, 2014, 10:51:19 am »
I'm surprised that people that can write on forums in English play a translation instead of playing the original work O_o .
« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 03:24:57 pm by Sturm »

Offline Hythlodaeus

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: The new system can be destructive for the translation!
« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2014, 01:06:18 pm »
I previously proposed a switch to Transifex. It operates similarly to GetTranslate, the main difference being there is no voting system whatsoever.

Offline grzegorj

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • grzegorj and Sherlock are my nicknames...
    • View Profile
    • X-COM
    • Email
Re: The new system can be destructive for the translation!
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2014, 04:47:23 pm »
@Dioxine: Marinistic terms, including "komandor", are also used in aviation, at least in the common speech. But an aeroplane is called just "statek powietrzny" = "air ship". Its commander in the sense "dowódca" is called "kapitan"... just like on a water ship. However, in the Polish air forces, names of military ranks are the same as in land armies (unlike in either USA or UK).

I like the pair of translations: "leader" = "lider" and "commander" = "komandor", seeing here just Polonization of the original terms, not a strict translation. They seem to me to be right as I am accustomed to the English version of the game, which I have used for almost twenty years... It is how you said: associations play a huge role in the translating process. For you, "komandor" may associate with definitely human characters. For me, a long-time UFO/XCom player, "komandor" associates with the highest rank of the alien forces. However, "oficer" and "generał" are not bad, either. Even if I am generally against translating by voting, perhaps we should ask what others think of this. Of course still voting on translation of particular strings (as well as on the translation as a whole) is the worst possible solution.

Btw. I can guess that "leader" means probably "squadron leader" (a military rank used in air forces). It corresponds to "major" in the Polish army (just like in Anglophone land armies, with different pronunciation). The strict counterparts of "commander" in the navy and "wing commander" in the air forces are, in the Polish army, "komandor porucznik" and "podpułkownik" respectively. This can cause a translator's hell, indeed... Note also that lieutenant in the navy and air forces = ("kapitan marynarki" or) "kapitan" in the Polish rank system while lieutenant in land armies = "porucznik", just like dictionaries say.


On chrysalid: note also that "poczwarka" = chrysalis (or pupa). Chrysalid (with -id, not -is) is an individual term of XCom inventors, and thus should not be translated. Anyway, it does not resemble a "poczwarka" in any detail. True chrysalises are immovable, as a rule, and immature = they cannot breed. "Our" chrysalid is not chrysalis-like: it is very fast and it treats reproducing as its weapon.


On "sektoidzi" etc.: I would like to ask others what they think about the problem. Still, I am against voting on particular strings and even on the choice between "sektoidzi" and "sektoidy", and between "mutoni" and "mutony" separately. This is one problem, and its solution must be introduced in the whole translation at the same time. Let's vote on alternative general solutions, not on strings!

Anyway, I vote against masculine-personal forms. Look at the Polish substantive ("noun") "antropoid" - a being similar to man but different in some respect. Dictionaries give only "antropoidy". It is for emphasizing the difference. The problem cannot be solved by means of language rules as the masculine-personal gender is conventional to some degree. I mean e.g. "karły" (short people, dwarfs) with no personal form in the normal speech, "chłopaki" (boys) with "chłopacy" used only rarely, etc. I also mean terms referring mainly or even exclusively to animals which are of the masculine-personal gender: "drapieżcy" (predators) and especially "roślinożercy" (plant eaters) - we use "wegetarianie" or "jarosze" when talking of people. But cows are definitely inhuman, and we still call them "roślinożercy". We can speak "ci obcy" (m-pers.!), "kosmici" and also "najeźdźcy" (invaders), and this is still insufficient to imply "sektoidzi". The possiblility of using non-personal forms for personal substantives is yet another problem. Note "bliźniaki", much more frequent than "bliźniacy", and also "chłopy", "doktory" etc., used even in belles-lettres.


@Falko: I would also prefer SupSuper doing coding, and it is the clue! I would not prefer random people doing coding. The same I would not prefer random people doing translation, and especially random people deciding on translation of random strings.

I understand that making translation free for everyone was thought to be an encouragement for more people to help. But it has appeared that this has caused VERY serious problems.

I am not for shutting mouths of all who are able to say something important or wise. I am against making a mess and against destroying the yet-done work.

How would SupSuper feel if somebody did a mess in his code? This is the same how a translator feels when a random man destroys his translation, especially when he changes "komandor" into "przywódca" in one string while it remains as "komandor" in another string. Does such a practice help anyone in anything?

OpenXcom is an open project - but the code is somehow protected against possible vandalism and against random coders who change the code in one place while leave it unchanged in another place, isn't it? The same should be done with the translations - the work of translators should be protected in the same way as the work of coders. You may not know it but translating is a very hard work and it should not be done by random persons - I am sure that Dioxine will confirm it even if we do not agree in some details.


@Yankes: This sounds quite reasonable. I do not think that there will be much problems with choosing the person responsible for the translation. He (or she!) should want to sacrifice his/her time and have enough competence. Special voting may be unnecessary - unless some person says "I will do it" while another person says "I am against it for some reason".


@Sturm: There are pros and cons. I played UFO in English for many years, so personally, I do not need a Polish translation at all. However, not everyone is enough fluent in English, and may just want to understand some details, e.g. in the ingame Ufopedia, for curiosity (I know such people). So, don't be egoistic, think of others as well. Besides, the original game was available in 3 languages from the very beginning. If in 3, why not in 30? English is a kind of modern Esperanto, OK, but why national languages should be worse? I only wish the translation should cost less time and effort. But it does... hence this discussion.

You are right and wrong with the term "karabin szturmowy" (anyway, there is no even the least reason for capitalizing it, such a spelling manner looks like littering our language with foreign spelling customs). Indeed, the newest norm does not have it. Such a term can be met in the literature, however (so, you are wrong thinking there is not such a military term). As it is absent in the norm, and at the same time it is a word-for-word translation of the international term, we may call it popular. Terminological (military, industry etc.) norms, unlike the orthographic norms (or to some degree, language or orthoepic norms) needn't be the one and only law. All depends if a term inconsistent with the norm is widely used or not.

On the other side, I understand that for a person who deals with military things, using an unnormative terminology may be thorny.

As far as I know, no hand weapon may be called "armata" in the modern language. So you may be wrong in this point. "Ciężki laser" would be acceptable but "ciężka plazma" woud not. "Plazma" means a state of matter, not a weapon (shortening of "broń plazmowa" to "plazma" is a slang). Such a translation may appear as thorny for a physicist as thorny is "karabin szturmowy" for an expert in militaries.

Offline Hythlodaeus

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: The new system can be destructive for the translation!
« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2014, 06:35:08 pm »


On chrysalid: note also that "poczwarka" = chrysalis (or pupa). Chrysalid (with -id, not -is) is an individual term of XCom inventors, and thus should not be translated. Anyway, it does not resemble a "poczwarka" in any detail. True chrysalises are immovable, as a rule, and immature = they cannot breed. "Our" chrysalid is not chrysalis-like: it is very fast and it treats reproducing as its weapon.


Keep in mind one thing. Chryssalid uses the suffix -id, which essentially denotes possession or belonging. My interpretation to this is that the Chryssalid is born MUCH like a chrysalis, i.e, by hatching from a cocoon, so it means something like "that which comes from a chrysalis" or "that which makes chrysalis". A similar noun+suffix compound could maybework in your language too.

Re: The new system can be destructive for the translation!
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2014, 10:32:19 pm »
I previously proposed a switch to Transifex. It operates similarly to GetTranslate, the main difference being there is no voting system whatsoever.

Or use Crowdin :P

Offline Sturm

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: The new system can be destructive for the translation!
« Reply #23 on: September 07, 2014, 12:01:00 am »
@Sturm: There are pros and cons. I played UFO in English for many years, so personally, I do not need a Polish translation at all. However, not everyone is enough fluent in English, and may just want to understand some details, e.g. in the ingame Ufopedia, for curiosity (I know such people). So, don't be egoistic, think of others as well. Besides, the original game was available in 3 languages from the very beginning. If in 3, why not in 30? English is a kind of modern Esperanto, OK, but why national languages should be worse? I only wish the translation should cost less time and effort. But it does... hence this discussion.
I'm thinking of others. Game translations have created a generation of people who learn English in multiple schools and still can't use it. Reading stuff in the language one learns (with help of a dictionary) is a great way of increasing ones vocabulary.

OK, but why national languages should be worse?
Because they aren't the language in which the work was written? Not to mention that apparently translators may be too busy pushing their own agenda to faithfully translate the work.

You are right and wrong with the term "karabin szturmowy" (anyway, there is no even the least reason for capitalizing it, such a spelling manner looks like littering our language with foreign spelling customs). Indeed, the newest norm does not have it. Such a term can be met in the literature, however (so, you are wrong thinking there is not such a military term). As it is absent in the norm, and at the same time it is a word-for-word translation of the international term, we may call it popular. Terminological (military, industry etc.) norms, unlike the orthographic norms (or to some degree, language or orthoepic norms) needn't be the one and only law. All depends if a term inconsistent with the norm is widely used or not.

On the other side, I understand that for a person who deals with military things, using an unnormative terminology may be thorny.
When someone writes assault rifle in English they use the military term, not slang and it should be translated with a military term, though. US Army apparently recognizes and defines the term of "assault rifle". "Karabin szturmowy" is a slang name like for example "assault weapon" in English. Literature is of highly varying quality and some (most?) may be written by people without education basing on articles from the internet. I can't find such a thing as "karabin szturmowy" in Encyklopedia Najnowszej Broni Palnej (written by people with actual military education), for example and someone with authority seems to be policing the Polish Wikipedia to also not use the term.

But, returning to the question of translation of X-Com. Rifle in X-Com isn't even called an assault rifle. It's simply a rifle (karabin). It's written as it's written and translation should be:

Karabin
Ten celny karabin wyborowy ma celownik naprowadzany laserowo i przyjmuje amunicję 6.7mm w 20-nabojowych ładownikach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-35ZDpMUcJM

Of course a sane weapon description would be something like:
Carbine
This accurate carbine has laser sights and takes 6.7mm ammunition in 20 round magazines.

But that's work for modders, not for translators.

As far as I know, no hand weapon may be called "armata" in the modern language. So you may be wrong in this point.
More precisely, it's the authors of the game who are wrong, which should preserved in translation as there's no such a thing in English either. There are no weapons categories of heavy cannon and auto-cannon applying to hand weapons. If such weapons (X-Com "heavy cannon" and "auto-cannon") existed they'd probably get called grenade launchers or something like that or would receive some fancy new name.

It's because auto-cannon isn't well thought out weapon. In fact, it was a weapon which was absent in Rebelstar 1 and 2 and in the original 3 mission release of Laser Squad.
Where did auto-cannon come from? Most probably from Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader. Originally, it was a vehicle-only weapon. Rogue Trader was published in 1987.
First edition of Laser Squad was published in 1988.

In 1988 Wh40k Rogue Trader went full retard with release of Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness. Suddenly there were deamons and auto-cannons in character's heavy weapon tables.

Then second edition of Laser Squad came out in 1989 and surprise, surprise it had graphics of a Rogue Trader space marine:
https://www.mobygames.com/game/atari-st/laser-squad/screenshots/gameShotId,346107/

And one of the new weapons in the second edition was auto-cannon...

So, yeah, it's basically "armata automatyczna" that somehow ended up as a personal weapon. To add an insult to injury, heavy weapons in Rogue Traders usually had individual anti-gravity units that compensated their weight which obviously are absent in copy-cat weapons.
When it comes to when name armata is used, for example ASP stays as "armata automatyczna" despite that it's also mounted on light vehicles and on a HMG tripod. Aircraft cannons are also "armata".

In other words, the authors fucked up, concept of people running around with cannons is retarded and it should be faithfully translated as "ciężka armata" and "armata automatyczna" so that everyone could read it and laugh and facepalm and cry.

"Ciężki laser" would be acceptable but "ciężka plazma" woud not. "Plazma" means a state of matter, not a weapon (shortening of "broń plazmowa" to "plazma" is a slang). Such a translation may appear as thorny for a physicist as thorny is "karabin szturmowy" for an expert in militaries.
It's because the game uses of a mixture of horrible nerd slang and (often mis-applied) military terminology. Both should be preserved to preserve the authenticity of the work. Yes, it includes Bomba Wysadzacz and Wyrzutnia Wysadzaczy or a similar abomination ;D .

Offline SupSuper

  • Lazy Developer
  • Administrator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The new system can be destructive for the translation!
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2014, 11:14:16 pm »
This would be the best way to resolve issues with translations. Let's hope @SupSuper heard us  :)

As for other things:I would vote for it and use "komandor" for TFTD aliens (no doubt they will come for us  sooner or later ;) )




I have nothing against you but those are the limitations of free, and the new guard always hates the old guard. :P

I'll look into alternate translation systems, but note that we can't just transfer all the data from GetLocalization, so all the translations would go back to square-one with only the most voted strings kept.

Offline Dioxine

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 5307
  • punk not dead
    • View Profile
    • Nocturnal Productions
    • Email
Re: The new system can be destructive for the translation!
« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2014, 01:38:50 am »
It's not about the new guard and old guard. As we're all nerds here, some of us have credentials for translations (I have several book translations published under my name), while the others don't. It's like science, it cannot be left to random people and democracy. Just like the code base isn't democracy, translation shouldn't be either. Let's choose a translator and a body of editors.

Yeah we need a separate string for "Commander" since the XCom commander would obviously be named "komandor" (well naval/aerial "komandor" doesn't really fit with the land-based colonel, but this is absolutely faithful to the original, as in English the discrepancy is the same...)

@Grzegorj: generally agreed on all accounts (with reservations: let's compromise and have both "sektoidzi" and "sektoidy" as valid forms?); although you haven't really adressed the fact that aliens are named by function, not rank :) "porucznik" can be a function ("porucznik bossa mafii"), but "major" or "komandor" cannot (unless in a very narrow, certain-military-tradition-and-time sense), etc.

@Sturm. Now, you're basing your argumentation on a lot of only loosely relevant examples (if educative). SO:

1. The need for Polish translation. Polish translation is a work of art & science and therefore needs no further rationale for existence. It'd be great to enjoy our favorite game in beautiful Polish, even if we don't *need* it. Hence my general stance, beautiful over faithful...

2. I didn't like your words about "too busy pushing their agenda to translate properly". My only agenda is to have a good translation here, gosh. Uncool, man.

3. Yes, afair the term "karabin szturmowy" is only colloquial in Polish. We say "karabinek AK" not "karabin szturmowy AK"; in fact, "karabin" is reserved for weapons firing full-powered rifle round, like 7.62 NATO. This is of course irrelevant as the weapon in queston is called "rifle", "karabin", end of story. HOWEVER you're wrong about the english part being wrong. There is nothing wrong in calling this weapon a rifle; even lower-callibre weapons like M-16 are called rifles. The term carbine, afaik, is in the US reserved for shortened rifles, NOT rifles firing underpowered rounds. Also look where the word "rifle" came from (rifled barrel). This is again beside the point, though.
Side note "...przyjmuje amunicję...". Mindless copying. More properly in Polish: "...używa amunicji...", "...strzela amunicją..."

4. You cannot use "the author is wrong" as an excuse for any translation extravaganza. While I am wholeheartedly for free translation ("I'm smarter than school rules"), you're going a critical step further ("I'm smarter than the author"). While this sometimes - very, very occasionally - might be defended, in general, only madness lies that way. So...

5. Naming a handheld weapon "armata" (unless metaphorically) is not only wrong, it's downright ridiculous. You cannot cherry-pick a single meaning for "cannon" out of many and push it. Let's go with "działko ręczne" and "ręczne działko rotacyjne" (conscious oxymorons) and be done with it. Both the sense and sensibility are saved. Please, save your ranting about how Rogue Trader went stupid (I disagree, it went hard SF -> postapoc SF) to somewhere else, along with that convoluted logic I cannot agree with, with all due respect.

6. "Ciężka plazma" is another monstrosity, have you no decency?

7. No they won't facepalm and cry at the authors, since Autocannon is an acceptable term in English (and besides that, the target audience doesn't neccesarily know English that good). They will facepalm at the stupidity of the translator. Trust me. No-one ever blames the author. And even barring that, I would never stand for such a cruel butchery of Polish language.

« Last Edit: September 11, 2014, 01:57:35 am by Dioxine »

Offline AndO3131

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The new system can be destructive for the translation!
« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2014, 01:34:09 pm »
Quote

I was afraid of something like that :(.

So here's another idea: let's wait for all strings to be ready in Getlocalization (I mean also strings from TFTD). Then @Dioxine and @grzegorj can take a look at them, discuss issues and come up with final translation. @SupSuper can overwrite polish translation on Getlocalization with this improved version (in case it's not possible, it can be downloadable from other place). How about that? ;D