From: Ralf Thielow <ralf.thielow@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:20:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] l10n: de.po: translate 27 new messages
Message-ID: <CAN0XMOLmcj0pqtbfGL7u+FOAg5_dv3+5Twb=SFju7BW=vkq1YQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87vbwpbcjx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>

2014-02-08 20:59 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>:
> Ralf Thielow <ralf.thielow@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2014-02-08 20:22 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>:
>>> "verberge keine aufgepfropften Commits" seems much more in the spirit of
>>> the original terminology.  "verbirgt keine Commits mit künstlichen
>>> Vorgängern" is plainly wrong anyway since it is not the commits _with_
>>> grafts which are hidden but rather the commits _provided_ by grafts.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe "verbirgt keine Commits auf Basis künstlicher Vorgänger"?
>
> No.  If at all "Verbirgt keine künstlichen Vorgänger" or "keine
> künstlichen Vorgängercommits" since the "künstlicher Vorgänger" _is_ the
> commit that is hidden: the graft, if we are being totally meticulous, is
> the list of artificial parents for a given commit.  The option, when
> activated, hides those artificial parents.
>
> And "Do not" is not "Does not", so "Verbirgt" seems also wrong as it
> likely should be "Verberge" (imperative).  But then it would depend on
> the overall style in which this imperative is usually translated.
>

Oh, I seem to have misunderstood the thing :/
So I'd be "verbirgt keine künstlichen Vorgänger-Commits".
For short descriptions of options we currently don't use the imperative.
This should be changed.
Thanks




> --
> David Kastrup