From owner-man-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Fri Mar 24 05:18:48 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id FAA62036;
	Fri, 24 Mar 2000 05:18:48 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-man-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from ppp142104.asahi-net.or.jp (ppp142104.asahi-net.or.jp [202.213.142.104])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA62029;
	Fri, 24 Mar 2000 05:18:45 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from tfuruya@ppp142104.asahi-net.or.jp)
Received: from localhost (localhost.tf.or.jp [127.0.0.1])
	by galois.tf.or.jp (8.10.0/3.7W-Teddy-00032101) with ESMTP id e2NKF1B26554;
	Fri, 24 Mar 2000 05:15:01 +0900 (JST)
To: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz>
Cc: man-jp@jp.freebsd.org, Yasunori Osana <osana@am.ics.keio.ac.jp>,
        hrs@geocities.co.jp, hrs@jp.freebsd.org,
        Kazuo Horikawa <horikawa@psinet.com>,
        Yoshihiro Ota <st96yb9t@drexel.edu>, Suzuki Koichi <koich@cac.co.jp>,
        mistral@imasy.or.jp
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:08:22 +0900"
	<200003191030.TAA26082@mail.geocities.co.jp>
References: <200003191030.TAA26082@mail.geocities.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: Tetsuro Teddy FURUYA
 (=?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCOEVDKxsoQiAbJEJFL086GyhC?=) <ht5t-fry@asahi-net.or.jp>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.93 on Emacs 19.28 / Mule 2.3 (SUETSUMUHANA)
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20000324051501W.tfuruya@galois.tf.or.jp>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 05:15:01 +0900
X-Dispatcher: imput version 980905(IM100)
Lines: 109
Reply-To: man-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+000315
X-Sequence: man-jp 2265
Subject: [man-jp 2265] Re: ncp* manual
Errors-To: owner-man-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-man-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: tfuruya@ppp142104.asahi-net.or.jp

Dear, Mr. Popov,

Please help me to clear the ambiguities 
of the translations on your ncp* manuals.

This mail is copied to man-jp@jp.freebsd.org.

=======================================================
I. Prologue.
The other day, Sato send you a question about the translation
of ncp* manuals.
There are 2 oposing experimental translations as to the statement,

Bugs
	to number a few.

Sato seemed to put forward only one of the experimental translations 
to you.
He answered me that he didn't ask my opinion
because he don't know my opinion well.
That may be true.

But I want to know the truth.

======================================================
II. Problem.
There are two questions I want to know.

1.Which is and what is the right translation ?
2.Which is and what is the apropriate translation pragmatically ?

The two experimental translations are:

A. Bugs to number a few.
   ==> There are bugs to number a few.
   ==> There are bugs which number a few.
   ==> There are a few bugs. (Sato's)

B. Bugs to number a few.
   ==> Bugs are to number a few.
   ==> There would (or could, should) be a few bugs. (Mine)

C. Another one.

===========================================================
III. Argument 1.
[1.Which is and what is the right translation ? ]
As to the question No.1, gramatically both are possible.
B.(There would ..) is explained in 
"A New Guide to English Grammer (Eibunpou Kaisetsu)"
by Taiichiro Egawa from Kaneko Shobo, P.322 Ch.13 S.215.(Probably you
don't know this book. This is for our japanese reader.)
One can say that this omission of "be" from "be to do" is 
peculiar to the headlines of newspaper.
Then I reply that the statement "Bugs to ..." includes the headline.
And bug is news in itself.
The newspapers are very popular. We can see this
kind of expression very often. 
So this kind of expression must not be limited to newspaper.

>From the view of the meaning,
both can be a placeholder of not yet known bugs (as you wrote).
But, B(There would ..) can work better than A(There are ..)
as a placeholder of the unknown bugs.
Because, B can express there is no known bug.

===========================================================
IV. Argument 2.
[2.Which is and what is the apropriate translation pragmatically ?]
As to the question No.2,
Innocent questions and bug reports come.

If manual said that "There are bugs." (A),
people will want to know what the bugs are, and will question to you.
This must be very annoying to you.
And when some one finds the bug, he may think "This must be bug, but
may be one of the known bugs written in the manual", and may not report.

If there are some known bugs, and you don't want to get bug reports
on these bugs,
then you will write "There are a few bugs. These are XXXX.
Don't send reports on these bugs."
So just only "there are bugs."(A) statement does not make sense
in this case.

=================================================================
V. Epilogue.
They are going to add the annotations to the translations of ncp* manuals.
So I made up mind to write this mail to clear the ambiguities.

================================================================

Tetsuro Furuya <ht5t-fry@asahi-net.or.jp>
----------------------------------------------------------------

>From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@geocities.co.jp>
Subject: [man-jp 2244] Re: ncp* manual
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:08:22 +0900
Message-ID: <200003191030.TAA26082@mail.geocities.co.jp>

hrs> Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> wrote
hrs>  in <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003191204380.7555-100000@lion.butya.kz>:
hrs> 
hrs> > 	This comes from the days when ncplib was a separate package and
hrs> > phrase "to number a few" was just a placeholder in the BUGS section. I
hrs> > think you can safely omit this section in the Japanese translation.
hrs> > Probably it should be commented out in the English version as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------
.eof
