Andra` Tori writes:
>
> Tole forwardam ker men ni nic jasn, v textu nastopa tudi omenjanje
> slovenske mnozine... bi kdo pogruntal zakaj se gre initd
Zdi se, da tece beseda o pravilih ujemanja med stevilko in
samostalnikom, ki so za slovanske jezike precej tricky; e.g.
101 dalmatinec.
et
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Stanislav Brabec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Sergey I. Panov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Slavonic plurals in glibc
> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:50:30 +0100
>
> Hallo glibc (and gnome-i18n) developers,
>
> I welcome including plural function into glibc-2.2.
>
> Few months ago we have had discussion about plurals on gnome-i18n list.
> So I have for you some fixes and hints:
>
> 1) Bad Slavic plurals
> 2) Simple future extension - ordinals
> 3) Possible problem - more plural rules in single language
>
>
> 1) Bad Slavic plurals
>
> If anybody (from Slavic language family) tells you that mother
> language plural rule is
> nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n%10>=2 && n%10<=4 ? 1 : 2
> ask him (her) again, let (s)he looks at official written rules.
> Upper mentioned rule is widely used in ordinary spoken language,
> but I guess, in most of languages is canonized different one (see lower)!
>
> I guess both Slavic rules mentioned in glibc documentation are incorrect
> and incomplete.
>
> Generic Slavic plural
> nplurals=3; \
> plural = n%10>=5 || n%100/10==1 ? 3 : n%10==1 ? 1 : 2
>
> This is correct for cs, sk, ru and probably for most Slavic languages.
>
> Plural form for pl
> nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : \
> n%10>=2 && n%10<=4 && (n%100<10 || n%100>=20) ? 1 : 2
> seems to be strange: it says, that 1 uses singular form, 2, 102
> nominativum form, and 5, 11, 12, 21, 101, 105 dativum form. Sounds
> really bad. Please verify it again with native Polish.
> I cannot verify specific Slovenian plural, because I don't speak it.
>
> References:
> cs, sk: My knowledge.
> ru: Verified by "Sergey I. Panov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
> 2) Simple future extension - ordinals
>
> There are not only plurals, which needs to be solved. For example, correct English
> dates need ordinal numbers:
> There is ordinal rule for english ("1st", "2nd", "3rd", "4th"):
> pluralid=ordinal; \
> nplurals=4; \
> plural = n%10>=4 || n%100=1 ? 4 : n%10=1 ? 1 : n%10=2 ? 2 : 3
> (I only don't know, where to place it, because en.mo doesn't exist!!!)
>
> and rule for ordinals in Czech and Slovak ("1.", "2.", "3."):
> pluralid=ordinal; nplurals=1; plural=1
>
> Ordinals could use nearly the same mechanism of making them with one exception:
> ngettext's expectation of two forms for English fails.
>
>
>
> 3) Possible problem - more plural rules in single language
>
> There is also principial complication for languages with more plural
> rules. I don't know about such language, but for example Czech language
> has at least three words with different plural rule (with dualum form).
>
> pluralid=dualum; \
> nplurals=4; \
> plural = n%10>=5 || n%100=1 ? 4 : n%10=1 ? 1 : n%10=2 ? 2 : 3
>
>
> --
> Stanislav Brabec
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-i18n mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
>
>
