Imperative in option messages?

Your arguments are „see how Germans do“. Or „options must be infinitive“. That's not really convincing.

Speaking of which language is closer, evidently Turkish, since Turkic peoples live around the Ossetes and have always been in close contact with them. Ossetic grammar (like the declension system) shows much similarity with languages like Turkish. And so on.

You tell „Медиавикийы Гъдаумæ/"Норматæм" гæсгæ, хъæуы инфинитив. Алы медиавикийы дæр ис инфинитив (шалдæры еттæмæ, кæй взагы нæй инфинитив)“. When that's not true, you say „Turkish is so far“ (while it's not).

> That's not constructive job

Constructive job is at least try to understand that most of the translations were not done just like my left foot liked it. I am not against changes, even dramatic ones, but be kind to get community support. I try to understand you, you are trying to just stand firm with your position. Accepting other person's point of view does not show that you loose, it shows that both gain.

If you say that my arguments are just „see how Germans do“ then your behavior is destructive. Read the discussion from the beginning. BTW saying that turkish is more related to ossetian is very strange for me.

Your main two points (I've listed both, you cite one) are:

• „all others do that way“ (and that's not true) and
• „computer shows us options, of which we choose one clicking on it“ (and that's only one way to describe the machine-man interaction).

Moreover, options could be shown in plural 2nd person (ном баивæм), in imperative (ном баив) or by an infinitive (ном баивын). Since imperative is the verb root in Ossetic, it's evidently better (it's natural, it's shorter and showing just sense, no grammar) and it's been in long use.

Хæрзæхсæв кæ.