Based on what reason?Eddi wrote:even though i personally write old spelling (because that's what i learned), the official translation should definitely be new spelling.
regards
Michael
Moderator: OpenTTD Developers
Based on what reason?Eddi wrote:even though i personally write old spelling (because that's what i learned), the official translation should definitely be new spelling.
Well, yes.Eddi wrote:you didn't honestly just ask that...
AndThe new orthography is only obligatory in schools [emph. mb]. According to the decision of 14 July 1998, of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany[1] outside the schools everybody can write as before, because there is no law ruling orthography. The majority of people use the traditional German orthography.[...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_spe ... rm_of_1996
I didn´t know that OTTD was a "school project".Eine über den schulischen Rahmen hinausgehende rechtliche Verbindlichkeit von Rechtschreibregeln existierte vor der Reform nicht und wurde mit der Reform auch nicht angestrebt, wie nicht zuletzt das Bundesverfassungsgericht in mehreren Entscheidungen erklärte.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuerungen ... der_Reform
Well, what are you on about here? IMO, it´s totally unrelated because even before the "new orthography", there were rules/guidelines. German readers/writers were not like people "in the middle ages", without the benefits of that reform.Roujin wrote: Back in the middle ages, they had no such guidelines and everyone (well, those who actually could write) wrote just like they wanted. It _worked_, and even today you can more or less understand the texts they wrote back then, but it certainly wasn't very nice
Well, I don´t see this happen outside schools. In fact, a couple of major newspapers and publishers have already returned to the "old" orthography and the majority of newspapers and publishing houses doesn´t apply these "rules" as a whole, but have been developing a multitude of so-called "house-rules". (Well, each to his own ...Now, despite not being enforced in any way, the new spelling rules will eventually spread out and become what most of the people use, simply because the young people all learn the new rules and the old people (eventually) die out.
I personally agree with that. "Vollladen" does look strange.michael blunck wrote:And maybe we could avoid some of the more ugly constructions like "vollladen" then ...
well, yes, and that is silly (imho). and furthermore, we did not agree to any "house-rules", and i don't see any authority who could do that. you have to stick to one single rule set (you were fancying consistency earlier, it does not stop at choosing one translation for "passenger wagon"), and unless anything different gets specified that everyone can agree on, this ruleset defaults to the new spelling.michael blunck wrote: Well, I don´t see this happen outside schools. In fact, a couple of major newspapers and publishers have already returned to the "old" orthography and the majority of newspapers and publishing houses doesn´t apply these "rules" as a whole, but have been developing a multitude of so-called "house-rules". (Well, each to his own ...)
that's what we are trying to change hereApart from that, the orthography on the language file doesn´t conform to those "rules" either.![]()
That's what we are trying to change here.Eddi wrote:we did not agree to any "house-rules"
It is related - young people don't learn the old spelling rules in school, and old people refuse to learn the new spelling rules. So, we have two groups of people following a different guideline of writing each, which is - for communication between members of each group - as good as having no guideline at all, like in the middle-ages.michael blunck wrote:Well, what are you on about here? IMO, it´s totally unrelated because even before the "new orthography", there were rules/guidelines. German readers/writers were not like people "in the middle ages", without the benefits of that reform.Roujin wrote: Back in the middle ages, they had no such guidelines and everyone (well, those who actually could write) wrote just like they wanted. It _worked_, and even today you can more or less understand the texts they wrote back then, but it certainly wasn't very nice
[...]
no, we're actually notmichael blunck wrote:That's what we are trying to change here.Eddi wrote:we did not agree to any "house-rules"![]()
regards
Michael
OK, what should we take then:Roujin wrote:what about calling them "Pfadsignal"? (path signal)PBS
That would still be true to its meaning, and also easy to get the connection from "pfad" to "path" as it's an easy translation, compared to translating "Fahrstra[sz]e".
Hm, we actually are.Eddi wrote:no, we're actually notmichael blunck wrote:That's what we are trying to change here.Eddi wrote:we did not agree to any "house-rules"![]()
regards
Michael
Which as a general rule never has been good German. "Sauerstoffflasche" never has been written with two "f" alone in the last decades.sulai wrote:"Don't use tripple letters like in "Vollladen". Use "Volladen" instead."
I'm a fan of "Pfadsignal" as that in my eyes best describes the usage. "erweitertes Signal" is IMO plainly rubbish - it bears no descriptive information whatsoever.sulai wrote: - "Pfadsignal" or "Fahrstraßensignal" instead of "erweitertes Signal"?
What do you suggest, then?Eddi wrote:i dislike "Pfadsignal"... i'm just not really sure why... it doesn't sound right...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests