Talk:The OLPC Wiki/lang-ja

Template

"Translation of The OLPC Wiki" at top-left of this page is translated as "翻訳の The OLPC Wiki" currently. It is strange for Japanese. I think it should be translated as "The OLPC Wikiの翻訳".-- Kazuhiro Abe

Thanks for noticing. The 'translation' (originally via Google) can be changed quite easily (see: Translating#multi-lingual navigation templates) and you are welcome to it. I'll fix it, but I would appreciate a sort of 'ok' for the other terms too :)

As for the sequence, I'm afraid I can't do much (except create a specific template for japanese) there's one for arabic (rather right-to-left scripts Template:Translation rtl). --Xavi 10:25, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. I checked Translating#multi-lingual navigation templates and understood. The sequence of Japanese is left-to-right, but the modification relation is different from English. For example, 'AのB' means 'B of A'. 'のB A' is incorrect. I think it is another problem, not RTL.

There is a workaround using a paraphrase in the passive, '翻訳された The OLPC Wiki'. I changed the template to this. --Abee 03:53, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I had misunderstood (as you can tell I know nothing about japanese :) we have a similar issue in spanish, but it works fine. BTW, I assume that the other two terms original => 原文 and changes => 変更 are fine, right? --Xavi 10:38, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

These words are correct as literal translation. I think '訳文' is more fitting for 'change'. ('訳文' means 'translation'.) '原文' and '訳文' are heteronymous words. But it's a free translation. '訳文' doesn't mean 'change' without a context. --Abee 05:20, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I really misunderstood the meaning of 'change' in this context. Above paragraph that I wrote is incorrect. 'change' should be translated in '変更'. I'm sorry. --Abee 02:17, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Literal translation vs. free translation

I translated [[Educators|content]] into [[Educators/lang-ja|コンテンツ]]. (「コンテンツ」 means "contents".) Spiky translate it into [[Educators/lang-ja|教育者向け]]. (「教育者向け」 means "for educators".) I think we should respect the intention of the original author. What do you think about it? --Abee 22:16, 14 August 2007 (EDT)