355220 - Dutch style error in locale/nl/pippki/newserver.properties

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Mozilla Localizations :: nl / Dutch, defect)

Description

[armijn]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; nl; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060927 Fedora/1.5.0.7-5.fc6 Firefox/1.5.0.7
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; nl; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060927 Fedora/1.5.0.7-5.fc6 Firefox/1.5.0.7

In the Dutch language pack in the file locale/nl/pippki/newserver.properties it says:

"Kan de identiteit van %S niet verifi\u00EBren als zijnde een vertrouwde website."

This is wrong. This should be either:

"Kan de identiteit van %S niet verifi\u00EBren als een vertrouwde website."

or

"Kan de identiteit van %S niet verifi\u00EBren zijnde een vertrouwde website."

The first is by former is by far the best.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. n/a
2.
3.




This is a Dutch language error which has popped up a lot in the last five years. The funny thing is that it only happens in the Netherlands, but not in Flanders, probably because they watch different TV stations, where they don't make that mistake. Ah, the power of TV.

Comment 1

[armijn]

In case the maintainers of the Dutch language translation are not convinced:

http://www.taalpost.nl/texts/archief/pdf/taalpost_176.pdf
http://www.wetenschapsforum.nl/viewtopic.php?t=15950

BTW, if this is the wrong category, please reassign. Thanks.

Comment 2

[Tim Maks van den Broek [:mad_maks]]

(In reply to comment #0)

> This is a Dutch language error which has popped up a lot in the last five
> years. The funny thing is that it only happens in the Netherlands, but not in
> Flanders, probably because they watch different TV stations, where they don't
> make that mistake. Ah, the power of TV.

There is one version for the netherlands and belguim so that it only happens in netherlands is very strange.

It is to late to fix this for Fx 2 but it will be fixed in version 3

Comment 3

[armijn]

I think you didn't quite get the remark. The use of the language construct "als zijnde" is only used in the Netherlands, but not in Flanders. So it has nothing to do technically with Firefox :)

Comment 4

[Tim Maks van den Broek [:mad_maks]]

fixed for fx 3

Comment 5

[Ton [:Tonnes]]

Sorry for not replying before (although I promised Tim to do so) but the bugfix urges me to do now.

Although I encourage eliminating style errors and appreciate the info submitted by Armijn, I'm afraid the current fix, as well as the other option suggested are both incorrect. I agree about the 'bad' word choice though.

If you (Armijn) have read the example sources well, you should know using 'als zijnde' is only incorrect if this is a pure contamination, i.o.w. if both refer to the same word. As your suggestions say leaving out either als or zijnde would fix the problem, I suspect you think they do in this case, which isn't entirely true. In other words, the line we're talking about does not read 'Als zijnde een vertrouwde website, () kan de identiteit niet verifiëren'. (This would imply the browser would be the trusted website here - As you also may have noticed, 'zijnde' normally points to a line's subject)

I'm not sure about the line's history, but the translation was probably intended to say 'Kan de identiteit .. niet verifiëren als X', where X subtitutes 'iets wat een vertrouwde website is', and the latter has been shortened by using 'zijnde'. I.o.w. the 'als' is part of verifiëren, and has nothing to do with 'zijnde', and thus the 'als zijnde' in this line may just be a coincidental 'samentrekking' instead of a case as given in your example sources. And of course, 'zijnde' stands for 'omdat/terwijl ... is' (see Taalpost), so all this makes using 'zijnde' wrong in any case.

Trickier may be the 'verifiëren als'. I'm not entirely sure but although English seems to allow this, I believe in Dutch it's officially possible one can verify something (or not), but not 'as something or someone' (even though I've seen MS using it). If this is true, both suggestions are unusable, which would mean something else in the line needs to change as well.

In short: unless we come up with something better in the near future, I'd suggest to use 'als' (suggestion 1) for now, meanwhile investigating its legitimacy. Tim?

Comment 6

[armijn]

I stand corrected. The "als zijnde" thing usually just makes me want to smash things. Indeed, here it's not the case. I think I'll try to come up with something better soon. Thanks for keeping me focused :-)