New plural rules for Scots Gaelic (gd)

Also, are you sure that you want 1 and 11 together as one form? Are there any grammar differences between 1 and 11 other than noun plurals? For example, is the translation of 'There is/are 1/11 sub-category/ies to this category' the same in Scots Gaelic?

Lloffiwr13:09, 2 July 2010

0 does not trigger any changes not covered by the four forms (it would be 0 + Form 4). But I take it you mean if a sentence like "there are 0 users logged in" would be "there are 0 users logged in" or "there are no users logged in"? The second would be more natural but it would not be a major problem if we had "there are 0 users logged in" in Gaelic.

Yes, 1 and 11 go together because in Gaelic 1 cause a morphophonemic change; as 11 is treated as 1 NOUN 10, the same rule applies, for example: 1 chat - in words aon (1) chat 11 chat - in words aon (1) chat deug (10)

Beyond that, no, there are no other chages (such as the is/are difference in English). In Gaelic the verb only reflects the status of declarative/interrogative/negative but does not change with number (fortunately... there is enough bizarre stuff going on!).

Akerbeltz21:27, 2 July 2010

What I meant with negating a sentence for 0, is that in both Welsh and Manx we would say 'there ARE NOT 0 users logged in' instead of 'there ARE 0 users logged in' - the negative form of the verb is used. And in Welsh it sticks out like a sore thumb to have the sentence use a positive verb form. Would be interested to know whether Scots Gaelic uses negative or positive verbs for discussing nothing; in other words, do you use the convention that nothing EXISTS (as in English) or nothing DOESN'T EXIST (as in Welsh/Manx)?:-)

Lloffiwr21:41, 2 July 2010

Ah right I see what you mean. No, it would be a declarative (positive) sentence, very similar to English, for example tha 0 cleachdaichean air logadh a-steach "be 0 users after logging in".

Akerbeltz21:43, 2 July 2010

My replies are not showing up on support also! A bug somewhere?

Back to the point. That's interesting. Thank you for the explanations. I think that you need to explicitly add 0 to the group using form 4 - the folks at CLDR will probably ask about this.

Lloffiwr21:47, 2 July 2010

Ok, I will, thanks for the pointer!

You reckon we can implement the changes here though before CLDR does anything since Sionnach is in agreement? I can provide sources galore but CLDR can be, as far as I'm told, a bit slow.

Akerbeltz21:56, 2 July 2010