… please comment v0.14.4 changes or improvements in translation. … svp, vos commentaires sur les modifs et/ou améliorations de traduction apparues en v0.14.4 (Dossiers->Partages; Machines->Appareils; etc) Merci
Bonjour. Pourquoi pas “Dossiers partagés” au lieu de partages ? Ca me parait encore plus clair Merci déjà pour le travail effectué !
Hi fulstop Partage(s) (Share(s)) had my preference over Dossier(s) partagé(s) (Shared folder(s)) because from a semantic PoV a shared folder is first mainly a folder (substantive) before having the shared attribut[iv|e](adjective). Folders exist in the device FS, whether ST is installed or not. ST (among other softwares/OS features) gives the ability to share. ST deals with sharing. It creates (“Add”) or _Remove_s the share, not the folder (read folder here in the widely spread meaning of directory), which is left untouched when removing. That’s why I carefully checked where I used Share or Directory (Répertoire), and matched the help strings accordingly (and completely removed any occurrence of Folder (Dossier - BTW, in French dossier first was the vertical part of the chair where my spine (“dos”) leans on at the moment, then later and by analogy the name was given to a fold carton box whose name/content writen on the back, au dos). Precisely selecting the word for the object ST is dealing with allows us to keep our usual human grammar and syntax without introducing an extra layer of ambiguity (over the existing one) that we should have to workaround anyway in some manner or another, as ST also gets a user visible foothold in the underlying FS structure with it’s own previously attached vocabulary. I’m not a linguist, so I feel I miss ultimate arguments. Although I feel explaining this way may bring another light : instead of Shared folders we’d rather say Folders shares when it comes to talk about both the objects ST deals with and the actions ST performs. So using e.g. Add a folder share (Ajouter un partage de dossier) would better say what will happen when we click the button… this reminds my very old years in elementary school when we learnt grammatical analysis : the tip to find any what is what in a sentence was “drop words until meaning is lost” : here, drop share and meaning is fully wrong. Drop folder and the meaning remains. Shrinking to Share(s) (Partage(s)) only, this quarantines the folder-vs-directory discussion into the OS, for the best serenity of ST. For me, even we call a directory a folder, I’ll never believe we can store a dry flower there in, when we can in folders. A computer directory only stores files, whatever are the linguistic manipulations that would want us to believe computers are the world, narrowing the world to computers. Let’s be the more respectful we can to the language, and then we even can use folder instead of directory about paths/targets, cancelling any ambiguity about ST main object, for the best sake of new users, newbs to computers, and the abstracting wealth of the future generations… Some more? Any honnest testimony from anyone having created an mkfol command alias to mkdir?
That’s a strong answer, you’ve thought the concept and abstract a lot more than me. I agree with you, and thank you for your investment in making the sense of st clearer
No worry man. Sorry for the long post, but considered the past debate when repository was dropped for folder, I felt more polite to bring arguments for french. It was a headache, but regards to my holidays free time, I could afford. Me too, I don’t like when things change for no reason. J’aime pas qu’on me change le goût du café. Although I’m not an integrist of frozen language.
This is perhaps stretching the topic a bit (and forgive me if I say something in ignorance, because I compute in English and therefore have only used Syncthing in English), but I would suggest that the premise of the «partages/dossier partagés» debate is missing the mark.
To my eye, “shared” («partagé») folders constitute incorrect usage in the context of Syncthing in the first place, because what is being “shared” is not a common resource, nor is it divided (the original meaning of “share”). Rather, it is duplicated, multiplied like loaves. It’s a useful shorthand because typically network resources have an authoritative source, but this is not (usually) the case with Syncthing. So, I’m not sure that translation are necessarily best served by merely translating the English term rather than interpreting the meaning of the function for themselves.
Good point. This will give me to think tonight. Let it brew in my mind… We have 2 meanings for sharing in french : divide, and keep as whole and use by several. Digital entities may introduce a special case, e.g. as a 2 files with same hash in 2 different computers may be considered as the same thing (kind of ubiquity) or different if we take the whole path into account… I anticipate another good headache.
I thought today I love a lot Syncthing name, but I confusely felt there is something fishy in “Sync” part because it has a close relation to time also…
Reading that again, …later, I’d reply… it depends : if you think about the content of the file(s), the meaning of what’s inside, isn’t it …shared? How does this idea to call this a share come to mind so easily, why?