Page MenuHomePhabricator

[[MediaWiki:Tpt-old-pages/en]] grammar issue
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

The plural version of this message creates a grammatically incorrect sentence: "The latest version of these pages have been marked for translation". Since 'version' is always singular, that should be "The latest version of these pages has been marked for translation".

Consequently, the source version of this message should read:

The latest version of {{PLURAL:$1|this page|these pages}} has been marked for translation.

URL: https://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki:Tpt-old-pages/ia

Event Timeline

The plural version of this message creates a grammatically incorrect sentence

Hi, where exactly? In which language(s)? How to see this problem somewhere?

Reedy subscribed.
	"tpt-old-pages": "The latest version of {{PLURAL:$1|this page has|these pages have}} been marked for translation.",

No, it's correct. Using plural, and has does not make sense, such as:

The latest version of these pages has been marked for translation.

https://proofreading.ie/portfolio/using-have-and-has-correctly/

Have is the root VERB and is generally used alongside the PRONOUNS I / You / We / Ye and They and PLURAL NOUNS. Generally, have is a PRESENT TENSE word.

Has is used alongside the PRONOUNS He / She / It and Who and SINGULAR NOUNS. However, there are some exceptions which will be explained later on in the lesson. In general, has is a PRESENT TENSE word.

"pages" is a plural noun

@Reedy, the very page you are citing proves that "has" is the correct form, because "version" is a singular noun. "The latest version have been marked" is wrong.

Your proposed fix is still not correct either

The latest version of these pages has been marked for translation.

This doesn’t read correctly. The current versions do.

You're quite simply wrong. The prepositional phrase ‘of these pages’ is removable and is irrelevant for subject-verb agreement.

See here for explanation and more examples: https://www.aje.com/arc/editing-tip-subject-verb-agreement-across-prepositional-phrases/

E.g.:

  • The analysis of the results *reveals* (not *reveal*)...
  • Each of the samples *was* (not *were*) treated...

Reedy is correct. The latest version of these pages has been marked for translation. is wrong, as those pages do not share a single "latest version".

If they don’t share a single latest version, why does this message mention one “latest version”? Why isn’t it

The latest versions of these pages have been marked for translation.

?

If they don’t share a single latest version, why does this message mention one “latest version”? Why isn’t it

The latest versions of these pages have been marked for translation.

?

Exactly. According to @Aklapper's argument, it should be:

The latest {{PLURAL:$1|version of this page has|versions of these pages have}} been marked for translation.

Exactly. According to @Aklapper's argument, it should be:

The latest {{PLURAL:$1|version of this page has|versions of these pages have}} been marked for translation.

Nah, that would be broken grammar in many languages that do not use the very same form ("latest") for both singular and plural (version(s)).
Plus it would be broken grammar in many languages that do not use the very same form ("marked") for both singular and plural (version(s)).

Nah, that would be broken grammar in many languages that do not use the very same form ("latest") for both singular and plural (version(s)).
Plus it would be broken grammar in many languages that do not use the very same form ("marked") for both singular and plural (version(s)).

And why do we care about other languages? This is the English message, it should be grammatically correct in English. Other languages are free to translate it however they want. If, for example, a language has dual form in addition to singular and plural, PLURAL supports even that. The two-form English message would be grammatically incorrect in that language no matter how exactly it’s worded, but fortunately that’s none of an issue, as the English wording appears in English.

And why do we care about other languages?

Because the (English) source message contains {{PLURAL}}. See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Localisation#%E2%80%A6on_numbers_via_PLURAL

And because grammar exists in human languages.

I don’t get what you mean. The PLURAL is there and should remain there, no one questions this. The question is about changing the wording of the English message. As long as the parameter and the presence of PLURAL remains in the English message, it should not affect other languages at all.

And I don't get what you mean. :) I explained what the problem is with translations; I don't know what makes you think that it's not relevant or what you'd like to discuss and why.

There is no obligation for translations to use PLURAL in the same format as the English original, they can use it in whatever way they need to generate correct grammar in the target language.

And I don't get what you mean. :) I explained what the problem is with translations; I don't know what makes you think that it's not relevant or what you'd like to discuss and why.

As far as I understand, this task is about the English message, not its translations. Translations are irrelevant here as long as we don’t make them impossible.

But proper translations are currently impossible. See what I wrote before here.
(Please don't re-subscribe me - thanks a lot! :)

I could perfectly translate this for example into German:

{{PLURAL:$1|Die neuste Version dieser Seite ist|Die neusten Versionen dieser Seiten sind}} zur Übersetzung freigegeben worden.

There are genders in German, the adjectives are inflected, and yet I could produce grammatically absolutely correct translation with the one variable that exists. (This translates the proposed meaningful English message, but I could translate the current one just as easily and grammatically correctly, even though it wouldn’t make sense in German either.)

(It was not me who resubscribed you – I just quoted your message, Phabricator did resubscribe you.)

I could perfectly translate this for example into German

Great but I don't see how that is relevant here. You may want to try some Slavic languages instead. :)

Unfortunately I don’t speak any Slavic languages, but I cannot imagine what could go wrong with them, and, especially, what would this wording change worsen in respect to translation into Slavic languages. Because anything that is not affected by the proposed change is irrelevant here.

By the way, you were the one who came up with translation issues, my opinion was from the beginning that any translation issues are irrelevant here, which includes, of course, translation into German as well. What should I react if you say one time that there are translation issues, and say the next time that translation is irrelevant here? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So. Can we move on and change current wording to the proposed one?

The latest {{PLURAL:$1|version of this page has|versions of these pages have}} been marked for translation.
The latest {{PLURAL:$1|version of this page has|versions of these pages have}} been marked for translation.

Looks good to me.

Maybe: The latest {{PLURAL:$1|version of this page|version of each of these pages}} has been marked for translation. ?

Maybe: The latest {{PLURAL:$1|version of this page|version of each of these pages}} has been marked for translation. ?

This is probably the most unambiguous proposed wording thus far. I am in favour of implementing this, and do not see a convincing reason to keep the ticket open for much longer. It is a rather trivial fix of a grammatical mistake in the source language version, after all.

Change 820683 had a related patch set uploaded (by Vogone; author: Vogone):

[mediawiki/extensions/Translate@master] Fix grammatical mistake in MediaWiki:Tpt-old-pages/en message

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/820683

Change 820683 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/Translate@master] Fix grammatical mistake in MediaWiki:Tpt-old-pages/en message

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/820683

Vogone claimed this task.

Resolved now on extension level, should also be resolved on Wikimedia upon next message update.