Imperative in option messages?

Орфографийы æгъдæуттæ дæр фаг æгъдæуттæ дæм нæ кæсынц цымæ? Фыссын хъæуы „æвзаргæ“, „æгъдæуттæ“, „æмæ“ æмæ афтæ дарддæр — иуæй-иу ран интерфейсмæ дæр бахауынц ахæм рæдыдтæ (дискусситы мидæг, кæй зæгъын æй хъæуы, цыфæндыдæр уа).

Императивы тыххæй та зæгъæн и лингвистикæйы цæстæнгæсæй — дунейы æвзæгтæ иухуызон не сты, иуæй-иу æвзæгты „инфинитив“ цы хонæм, уый æппындæр нæй (зæгъæм, болгайраг æвзаджы), æндæр æвзæгты та тасындзаг нæй — мивдисджытæн ис æрмæстдæр иу формæ (китайагау æмæ а. д.). Медиавикийы, æрмæст инфинитивтæ фысс, зæгъгæ, ахæм нормæ нæй, фыссын хъæуы, цы бæззы хуыздæр, уый. Ирон инфинитив афтæ хорз нæ бæззы, уый тыххæй тæлмацгæнджытæ (æрмæст мæхи кой нæ кæнын, фæлæ Аслан „dziglo“ дæр афтæ кодта) пайда кæнынц императивæй.

» Шæмæ дæм кæсы лозунг у?

Алы хатт дæр вæййы фыццаг тæлмац.

Hi, I cannot understand the discussion but Bouron referred me to here.

Most of the time you should use infinitive, because it is an action the user "wants" to do (for example, he wants to edit -> infinitive for "edit"). But you should use imperative when the user "must" do something (e.g. when he wants to login, he must enter his password -> imperative for "enter password").

Ossetic is non-European. It has no large interface translation tradition (and in what it has, imperatives are used). And imperative coincides with 1 p. singular form (so „to do“ and „I do“ are the same). All that makes the decision not so obvious, as it is in, say, Russian. Btw, English does not use real infinitives in interfaces: „edit“ might be as well understood as „do edit; редактируй“.

What mean Ossetic is non-European? That says nothing about which of the mode we should to use. Moreover Ossetic is IE language and has infinitive usage same with Holland and German. In Holland infinitive coincides with 1.p plural (to do and we do) but that is not reason for using imperative. About "do edit". Who makes that order? System just makes us proposals and we chose one of them clicking the mouse.

„Хочешь — жни, а хочешь — куй“. Here's what system tells. You just choose among listed options, each of them is an invitation to do something, an imperative. Adding -ын to every option on the page is just making it heavier.

Ossetic doesn't have imperative shown with infinitive form (like „Ne pas fumer“ in French, „Не курить“ in Russian; I am not sure, but German seems to do the same). Ossetic uses imperative, when it's imperative, no need for borrowing grammar from abroad.

1) You say: in English, "edit" might as well be understood as "do edit" -> that is the misunderstanding; it is an infinitive but that is coincidentally the same as imperative in English (that proves English is bad for being a source language)

2) You say: You just choose among listed options, each of them is an invitation to do something, an imperative. -> that is the contrary, an invitation/option must be an infinitive because it is an invitation/option. Imperative comes from Latin "imperare" which means "to command, order". That's the contrast.

3) If your babel boxes are right, then Bouron is a native Ossetian speaker and you speak Ossetian as a second language. That would mean Bourbon has more understanding of Ossetian and should be right.

Thank you for showing me my place, colleague. What's taking place is not my pressing on Bouron, but trying to save a tradition, created by natives and not criticized until now. Again thank you, you are so very polite.

As for the English „cancel“, „resume“ and others they are clearly commands, aren't they. How do you tell infinitives from imperatives in English, except of you own judgement of what's logical and fair and what's not.

I wasn't personally attacking you or something.

Anyway, I shouldn't have interfered with a discussion about a language with which I have nothing to do, in fact.

Maybe you should find a third (or more) Ossetian translator who can decide whether to use imperative or infinitive. Just an idea.

We are in the process, yes. Sorry for possibly having hurt you.

If it is „Хочешь — жни, а хочешь — куй“, Russian messages should be "Хочешь — правь, а хочешь — читай". It seems you are constructing your arguments on believe "Options shouldn't be in infinitive". That's not right thing. We should respect arguments of each other.

Again. Messages like Edit... are options. You don't need them to be in imperative. Russian "Не курить" is a rule, while options in media wiki are not. You can't chose not to smoking. It's necessary. But you can chose to "edit" or not. So options like "править" and others are not orders.

BTW ossetian form of instruction "No smoking" is not imperative. It's "Naej dymaen" or "Naej gaenaen dymyn" or something else. Not "Ma dym". Ossetian imperative is just clear order for defined person(s).

Nobody borrows grammar. Don't worry.

„Næj dymæn“ would be „Курить запрещено“ (smoking forbidden), of course.

It is not that I am completely against your idea, but it's a very dramatic change — and it appears in the Wikipedia at once, perplexing users (well me at least). Since others (there are about a dozen, well half a dozen, editors at os.wiki and about a thousand at vk.com) never complained, maybe the previous way of doing things has been ok?

I mean, discussing things before changing the basic terms and grammar, seems like a very good way to proceed.

Please don't use vk.com and Wikipedia as arguments. They are really not competent here.

Nobody changes basic terms. I am correcting them. There is a mistake in translation and we should correct it. I explained why they are incorrect.

Where have you seen word "forbidden" in „Næj dymæn“?

„Næj ..æn“ is a modal construction showing objective impossibility, when something is impossible because of external reasons (like when it's forbidden).

> Messages like Edit... are options. You don't need them to be in imperative.

..but they may be, as shown on Turkish example below and on many years of interface functioning. Your logic is only one of possible ways of thinking; surely it looks like the only one to you, because that's how you think.

Still it's not the Wikipedian way of doing when you come and just change the whole interface, not the obvious errors, but some relative metaphysics like verb modality — and in a week it's being pushed to all the projects from here. But well, I don't have the needed energy or motivation to insist or to revert all your edits, that would be even more unethical.

You are not right. Næj and -æn are independent here. Нæй = Нæ ис; дымæн is possibility to дымын. Нæ ис дымæн = There is no possibility to smoke. Where is forbidden here?

„Нæ ис дымæн“ is evidently ungrammatical. The structure „...æn næj“ evidently is not independent, but it's a modal structure with its own meaning — like, say, continuous tense in English. You may read on Ossetic modality elsewhere.

Indeed the Finnish has the same. Logic is that the user commands the application/website to do something for him.

Дискусситы мын куыд ынчондæр у афтæ фыссын. Орфографийы æгъдæуттæ ис литературон ывзагæн, къуыдайрагæн нæй. Къуыдайрагау "æмæ" фылдæр "мæ" у, мæ ма раззаг "æ-" арæх фесæфы. Кæд тæлмашты аивæрзынч, уæд растгæнинаг сты. Зæгъæм "Байдау" куы сраст коттай.

Ирон инфинитив тынг фидар у. Мæ джы тынг арæх пайда кæнынч. Кæд уырыссагæй гыццыл хишæн кæны, уæд Немцаг мæ Голландаг инфинитивæй нишæмæй хишæн кæны куыд джы архайынч умæй.

>>Ирон инфинитив афтæ хорз нæ бæззы

Шæмæй йæ бафидар кæнджæ дæ ныхас? Ыз мæ ныхæстæ алыхаттдæр фæфидар кæнын.

Цы фидарæй дæ уырны, уымæй йæ фидар кæныс. Æз та алы хатт гуырысхо кæнын, ног хъуыддаг у æмæ бæрнон этапы стæм, райдайæм ног традици.

Несколько разных переводчиков предпочитали императив в интерфейсах, поэтому решение не видится мне таким уж однозначным. Если возникнет согласие по вопросу, поменяем везде; для меня лично не проблема привыкнуть к чему угодно — мæхи вики куы нæу; стæй бирæ азты дæргъы мæ бæллиц уыд, цæмæй æндæр адæймæгтæ йæм зилой мæнæй хуыздæр. Хуыцауæн табу, ахæм рæстæг дæр æрцæуы.