From: Theo Veenker (Theo.Veenker@let.uu.nl)
Date: Mon Jul 11 2005 - 17:37:22 CDT
Patrick Andries wrote:
> Theo Veenker a écrit :
>
>>
>> Rule 1
>> two forms:
>> n==1 -> plural form 0
>> otherwise -> plural form 1
>> applies to:
>> Germanic family
>> Danish, Dutch, English, German, Norwegian, Swedish
>> Finno-Ugric family
>> Estonian, Finnish
>> Latin/Greek family
>> Greek
>> Semitic family
>> Hebrew
>> Romanic family
>> Italian, Portuguese, Spanish
>> Artificial
>> Esperanto
>>
>> Rule 2
>> two forms:
>> n==0 || n==1 -> plural form 0
>> otherwise -> plural form 1
>> applies to:
>> Romanic family
>> French, Brazilian Portuguese
>>
>
> Why is n == 0 not considered in Rule 1 ? What about the fact that n == 0
> sometimes implies using a different form in mormal speech rather than
> computer generated text ("Es gibt kein Datei", rather than "Es gibt
> 0/null Datein" ) ? I would also think in Dutch one would say "Er is geen
> fout" and not "Er zijn 0/nul fouten". Just an impression.
I had this set of rules in my archive and I've implemented a message
formatter using these rules, but the rules as written here come from
GNU gettext so I can only guess why there is no zero case. It's an
idea to take into account.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Rule 6
>> three forms:
>> n%10==1 && n%100!=11 -> plural form 0
>> n%10>=2 && n%10<=4 && (n%100<10 || n%100>=20) -> plural form 1
>> otherwise -> plural form 2
>> applies to:
>> Slavic family
>> Croatian, Czech, Russian, Slovak, Ukrainian
>>
> Coincidently, I had also recently requested a change in ChoiceFormat
> for Russian (not that I have much hope, note ;-)) since
> RuleBaseNumberFormats or ranges are just too cumbersome when you want to
> catch the modulo logic, I find.
Yes, more flexibility doesn't always make things easier to use.
Theo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 11 2005 - 18:07:08 CDT