Given a phrase that is dynamically constructed with portions present or removed based on parameters, what are some possible solutions for supporting localization? For example, consider the following two phrases with bold parts that represent dynamically inserted portions:
The dog is spotted, has a doghouse and is chasing a ball.
The dog is white, and is running in circles.
For English, this can be solved by simply concatenating the phrase portions or perhaps having a few token-filled strings in a resource file that can be selected based on parameters. But these solutions won't work or get ugly quickly once you need to localize for other languages or have more parameters. In the example above, assuming that the dog appearance is the only portion always present, a localized resource implementation might consist of the following resource strings:
AppearanceOnly: The dog is %appearance%.
ActivityOnly: The dog is %appearance% and is %activity%.
AssessoryOnly: The dog is %appearance% and has %accessory%.
AccessoryActivity: The dog is %appearance%, has %accessory% and is %activity%.
While this works, the required number of strings grows exponentially depending upon the number of parameters.
Been searching far and wide for best practices that might help me with this challenge. The only solution I have found is to simply reword the phrase—but you lose the natural sentence structure, which I really don't want to do:
Dog: spotted, doghouse, chasing ball
Suggestions, links, thoughts, examples, or "You're crazy, just reword it!" feedback is welcome :) Thanks!
The best approach is probably to divide the sentence to separate sentences, like “The dog is spotted. The dog has a doghouse. The dog is chasing a ball.” This may look boring, but if you would replace all occurrences of “the dog” except the first one, you have a serious pronoun problem. In many languages, the pronoun to be used would depend on the noun it refers to. (Even in English, it is not quite clear whether a dog is he, she, or it.)
The reason for separation is that different languages have different verb systems. For example, in Russian, you cannot really combine the three sentences into one sentence that has three verbs sharing a subject. (In Russian, you don’t use the verb “to be” in present tense – instead, you would just say the equivalent of “Dog – spotted”, and there is no verb corresponding to “to have” – instead, you use the equivalent of “at dog doghouse”. Finnish is similar with respect to “to have”. Such issues are sometimes handled, in “forced” localizations, by using a word that corresponds to “to possess” or “to own”, but the result is odd-looking, to put it mildly.)
Moreover, languages have different natural orders for subject, verb, and object. Your initial approach implicitly postulates a SVO order. You should not assume that the normal, unmarked word order always starts with the subject. Instead of using sentence patterns like "%subject% %copula% %appearance% (where %copula% is “is”, “are”, or “am” in English), you would need to call a function with two parameters, subject and appearance, returning a sentence that has a language-dependent copula, or no copula, and that has a word order determined by the rules of the language. Yes, it gets complicated; localization of generated statements gets rather complicated as soon as you deal with anything but structurally very similar languages.
I have a database of words (including nouns and verbs). Now I would like to generate all the different (inflected) forms of those nouns and verbs. What would be the best strategy to do this?
As Latin is a highly inflected language, there is:
a) the declension of nouns
b) the conjugation of verbs
See this translated page for an example of a verb's conjugation ("mandare"): conjugation
I don't want to type in all those forms for all the words manually.
How can I generate them automatically? What is the best approach?
a list of complex rules how to inflect all the words
Bayesian methods
...
There's a program called "William Whitaker's Words". It creates inflections for Latin words as well, so it's exactly doing what I want to do.
Wikipedia says that the program works like this:
Words uses a set of rules based on natural pre-, in-, and suffixation, declension, and conjugation to determine the possibility of an entry. As a consequence of this approach of analysing the structure of words, there is no guarantee that these words were ever used in Latin literature or speech, even if the program finds a possible meaning to a given word.
The program's source is also available here. But I don't really understand how this is to work. Can you help me? Maybe this would be the solution to my question ...
You could do something similar to hunspell dictionary format (see http://www.manpagez.com/man/4/hunspell/)
You define 2 tables. One contains roots of the words (the part that never change), and the other contains modifications for a given class. For a given class, for each declension (or conjugation), it tells what characters to add at the end (or the beginning) of the root. It even can specify to replace a given number of characters. Now, to get a word at a specific declension, you take the root, apply the transformation from the class it belongs, and voilà!
For example, for mandare, the root would be mand, and the class would contains suffixes like o, as, ate, amous, atis... for active indicative present.
I'll use as example the nouns, but it applies also to verbs.
First, I would create two classes: Regular and Irregular. For the Regular nouns, I would make three classes for the three declensions, and make them all implement a Declensable (or however the word is in English :) interface (FirstDeclension extends Regular implements Declensable). The interface would define two static enums (NOMINATIVE, VOCATIVE, etc, and SINGULAR, PLURAL).
All would have a string for the root and a static hashmap of suffixes. The method FirstDeclension#get (case, number) would then append the right suffix based on the hashmap.
The Irregular class should have to define a local hashmap for each word and then implement the same Declensable interface.
Does it make any sense?
Addendum: To clarify, the constructor of class Regular would be
public Regular (String stem) {
this.stem = stem
}
Perhaps, you could follow the line of AOT in your implementation. (It's under LGPL.)
http://prometheus.altlinux.org/en/Sisyphus/srpms/aot
http://seman.sourceforge.net/
http://aot.ru/
There's no Latin morphology in AOT, rather only Russian, German, English, where Russian is of course an example of an inflectional morphology as complex as Latin, so AOT should be ready as a framework for implementing it.
Still, I believe one has to have an elaborate precise formal system for the morphology already clearly defined before one goes on to programming. As for Russian, I guess, most of the working morphological computer systems are based on the serious analysis of Russian morphology done by Andrey Zalizniak and in the Grammatical Dictionary of Russian and related works.
Our application is being translated into a number of languages, and we need to have a combo box that lists the possible languages. We'd like to use the name of the language in that language (e.g. Français for French).
Is there any "proper" order for listing these languages? Do we alphabetize them based on their English names?
Update:
Here is my current list (I want to explore the Unicode Collating Algorithm that Brian Campbell mentioned):
"العربية",
"中文",
"Nederlands",
"English",
"Français",
"Deutsch",
"日本語",
"한국어",
"Polski",
"Русский язык",
"Español",
"ภาษาไทย"
Update 2: Here is the list generated by the ICU Demonstration tool, sorting for an en-US locale.
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Nederlands
Polski
Русский язык
العربية
ภาษาไทย
한국어
中文
日本語
This is a tough question without a single, easy answer. First of all, by default you should use the user's preferred language, as given to you by the operating system, if that is one of your available languages (for example, in Windows, you would use GetUserPreferredUILanguages, and find the first one on that list that you have a translation for).
If the user still needs to select a language (you would like them to be able to override their default language, or select another language if you don't support their preferred language), then you'll need to worry about how to sort the languages. If you have 5 or 10 languages, the order probably doesn't matter that much; you might go for sorting them in alphabetical order. For a longer list, I'd put your most common languages at the top, and perhaps the users preferred languages at the top as well, and then sort the rest in alphabetical order after that.
Of course, this brings up how to sort alphabetically when languages might be written in different scripts. For instance, how does Ελληνικά (Ellinika, Greek) compare to 日本語 (Nihongo, Japanese)? There are a few possible solutions. You could sort each script together, with, for instance, Roman based scripts coming first, followed by Cyrillic, Greek, Han, Hangul, and so on. Or you could sort non-Roman scripts by their English name, or by a Roman transliteration of their native name. Probably the first or third solution should be preferred; people may not know the English name for their language, but many languages have English transliterations that people may know about. The first solution (each script sorted separately) is how the Mac OS X languages selection works; the second (sorted by their Roman transliteration) appears to be how Wikipedia sorts languages.
I don't believe that there is a standard for this particular usage, though there is the Unicode Collation Algorithm which is probably the most common standard for sorting text in mixed scripts in a relatively language-neutral way.
I would say it depends on the length of your list.
If you have 5 languages (or any number which easily fits into the dropdown without scrolling) then I'd say put your most common language at the top and then alphabetize them... but just alphabetizing them wouldn't make it less user friendly IMHO.
If you have enough the you'd need to scroll I would put your top 3 or 5 (or some appropriate number of) most common languages at the top and bold them in the list then alphabetize the rest of the options.
For a long list I would probably list common languages twice.
That is, "English" would appear at the top of the list and at the point in the alphabetized list where you'd expect.
EDIT: I think you would still want to alphabetize them according so how they're listed... that is "Espanol" would appear in the E's, not in the S's as if it were "Spanish"
Users will be able to pick up on the fact that languages are listed according to their translated name.
EDIT2: Now that you've edited to show the languages you're interested in I can see how a sort routine would be a bit more challenging!
The ISO has codes for languages (here's the Library of Congress description), which are offered in order by the code, by the English name, and by the French name.
It's tricky. I think as a user I would expect any list to be ordered based on how the items are represented in the list. So as much as possible, I would use alphabetical order based on the names you are actually displaying.
Now, you can't always do that, as many will use other alphabets. In those cases there may be a roman-alphabet way of transliterating the name (for example, the Pinyin system for Mandarin Chinese) and it could make sense to alphabetize based on that. However, romanization isn't a simple subject; there are at least a dozen ways for romanizing Arabic, for example.
You could alphabetize them based on their ISO 639 language code.
This is something I've always wondered, and I can't find any mention of it anywhere online. When a shop from, say Japan, writes code, would I be able to read it in English? Or do languages, like C, PHP, anything, have Japanese translations that they write?
I guess what I'm asking is does every single coder in the world know enough English to use the exact same reserved words I do?
Would this code:
If (i < size){
switch
case 1:
print "hi there"
default:
print "no, thank you"
} else {
print "yes, thank you"
}
display the exact same as I'm seeing it right now in English, or would some other non-English-speaking person see the words "if", "switch", "case", "default", "print", and "else" in their native language?
EDIT - yes, this is serious. I didn't know if different localizations of a language have different keywords. or if there are even different localizations at all.
If I understood well the question actually is: "does every single coder in the world know enough English to use the exact same reserved words as I do?"
Well.. English is not the subject here but programming language reserved words. I mean, when I started about 10 yrs ago, I didn't have any clue of English, and still I was able to program simple things by learning the programming language, even when I did not know what they meant ( in English ). As a matter of fact this helped me to learn English.
For example. I know to do an "iteración" ( iteration of course ) I had to write:
for( i = 0 ; i < 100 ; i++ ) {}
To me, the "for", the ";" and the "++" were simple foreign words or symbols. Later I learned that "for" meant "para", "while" meant "mientras", etc. But, in the meantime, I did not need to know English, what I needed was to know was "C".
Of course when I needed to learn more things, I had to learn English, for the documentation is written in that language.
So the answer is: No, I don't see if, while, for etc. in my native language. I see them in English, but they didn't mean to me any other thing that they meant for the programming language in turn.
Is like switch statement in bash: case .. esac. What Is "esac"... for me the end of the switch statement in bash.
I guess that's what we call "abstraction"
In the Java language some methods must be named (at least partially) using the English language because of the JavaBeans convention.
This convention requires that a property X be established via a pair of getX() and setX() methods. Here in French-Canada, where some developers are obliged to code in the French language this leads to the following travesty:
interface Foo {
Color getCouleur();
void setCouleur(Color couleur);
}
I'm having trouble finding references, but I'm reminded of three stories.
A Lisp hacker defends meaningless functions like "cdr" and "car" by comparing them to programming in your non-native language:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg01171.html
When Yukihiro Matsumoto ("Matz") started developing Ruby, he used english keywords even though he was writing all the documentation in Japanese!. There was no English documentation for Ruby for a couple years, and very few Americans using the language. But now it's a world-class language, and it the fact that it was born in Japan is only of historical interest. If the language had been using keywords in hiragana, it would have had a much more difficult time gaining popularity.
I read an essay once -- maybe someone else can find it, Google is no help today -- that suggested that translating keywords was misguided because the words aren't actually English-- they're jargon. Not only do (to use the examples above) para and pour not quite have the exact meaning that for has in English, to non-programmers the phrase "for loop" is jibberish. Even Americans have to learn a new meaning. So to translate the words's superficial meaning into another language is more like making a cross-language pun rather than actually being helpful.
I really have not thought too much about programming in Japanese before, but here we go, using the question's code sample.
Using only the language statements in Japanese with the variables in English:
// In Japanese, it makes more sense to put the keywords/modifiers as
// postfix expressions rather than prefix expressions.
(i < size)か {
(l[i])は {
1だ:
「もしもし。」を書く;
省略時値:
「いいえ、いいですよ。」を書く;
}
} ない {
「はい、ありがとうございます。」を書く;
}
As many people already pointed out, in most programming languages you just have to learn a few keywords, so it doesn't matter that much if they're in English (or a language other than yours, for that matter). It's just a symbol you associate with some construct. For instance, in VB you have "THEN", which in many C-style languages would be "{" and it doesn't make a big difference in readability (well, at least that's how I see it, being a Non-English native speaker).
But where things can sometimes get hairy, and where the choice of (natural) language matters is in naming identifiers. If the names of variables, functions, classes, etc, don't have a meaningful name for you because of a language barrier, following even the simplest code can be rather challenging.
I remember someone once gave me a short snippet of Actionscript taken from some blog. The names were in German and since I don't speak a word of that language, stuff could have been called var_123, var_562 or func_333 as well (and probably it would have been easier for me to remember the names or at least to have a chance of spelling them right without copying and pasting). Since this was a short, self-contained snippet, I used an online translator to give those vars and functions meaningful names in my native language (Spanish) and after that, everything was clear. The point is that the code was actually simple, but I was only able to make sense out of it without too much (unnecessary) extra effort just when I overcame the language barrier.
Since then, I've switched to using English for naming identifiers. Whether you like it or not, it's the "koine" for programming, engineering and generally technical stuff. Most of the APIs are written in English and so is most documentation (and probably the best resources you can find are in English as well). As a nice aside, it keeps your code more coherent with the code you're likely to be interacting with, and I think it tends to be more compact and succinct than other languages like Spanish (which otherwise would be my natural choice).
Of course, if you can't understand at least some English, the problem remains the same, so it's not a perfect solution. But, given a number of developers from many different countries, chances are that the common language for them to communicate (through code and of course other means) will be English. So, choosing English is perhaps the best option, even though it would be not the perfect solution to this problem.
The programming language defines keywords and standard class names, and it's best practice to give user defined types, variables and functions also English names (as a non-native speaker I can tell ;-).
So yes, if all is well, you'll be able to read the code.
However languages like Java and Perl allow the full Unicode set for identifiers, so if somebody writes his class names in Kanji, you'll likely have a problem.
Update: For Perl there's a joke module that allows you to write Perl in Latin. But it's really just that, a joke. Nobody uses things like this seriously.
Second Update: The idea of localized programming languages isn't that ridiculous. Excel's macro language is localized, but luckily it's stored in one canonical language (English) in the file, so the localization is just a layer on top of the normal thing. Such things only make sense for small "programs", for "real" programs it becomes hard to maintain.
Actually there are some Non-English-based programming languages (Wikipedia)
I'm Norwegian but I've allways used English for all code except output (ignoring some silly code from school). Actually I usually write everything in English and then translate it to my native language, using gettext (or something).
I am British and a problem we often run into is the American/British spelling clash. This often occurs with programming related terms such as Initialise() or Initialize(), Analyse() or Analyze() etc. This can (has) lead to problems trying to overriding methods, and is sometimes difficult to spot.
Since the framework (in our case C#) was designed by Americans, we found that it is best to be consistent and use American spellings. We even adopt Color.
We have a mix of nationalities in our development teams and most non-British people tend towards American spellings naturally.
AppleScript was once available in French and Japanese dialects. I do not know why it was withdrawn.
Taking this to the next level, what about being able to substitute symbols?
After seeing languages like Brainf**k and Whitespace I thought of making a language like this: it'd be identical to C except you use closing braces to open, opening braces to close, swap the meanings of + and -, * and /, ; and :, > and <, etc.
The concept is nothing more than a gimmicky altered C compiler. But, like thinking of keywords differently, it challenges you to rethink some basic assumptions if you've never thought of such things before. Ex:
int foo)int i, char c( }
int six = 2 / 3:
int two = six + 4:
if )i > 0( }
printf)"i is negative"(:
{
{
I'm in a French team developing a software system in C#. Despite the fact that the programming language keywords are ostensibly English, I imagine that you would have great difficulty reading the code as all the function names, variables, code comments, database tables and columns, technical specifications, protocols and so on, are all in French, including those lovely accented characters ç, é, è, ù, etc. I'm not even certain if the system would even run elsewhere due to localisation bugs, such as relying on the comma to be the default decimal seperator.
Otherwise, WinDev is a popular programming platform in France, and its programming language WLanguage has keywords in either French or English, see and example here : link text
The only language I saw localized is Excel with its macros. If you try to sum a column using an Italian version of Office you have to write SOMMA(A1:A10) and not SUM. That's a shame.
By the way, just because it's fun, here's how your code should look like with Italian keywords:
se (i < size){
commuta
caso 1:
stampa "hi there"
normalmente:
stampa "no, thank you"
} altrimenti {
stampa "yes, thank you"
}
i've seen VBA translated into spanish-like commands. it's one of the ugliest things ever seen. i would be ashamed to have something like this on my computer.
PD: i happen to think that spanish is a much nicer language than english; but translating is WRONG
Well, As others pointed-out, the keywords and system calls would likely remain in English.
However, understanding the keywords of the language is only a small part in understanding the code. Variable names, function names and comments all risk being in the native language of the author.
Edit: I just flashed-back to my youth where I went in the mapping tables of my TRS-80 built-in BASIC to switch the keywords to French. I could change all the keywords but I couldn't make any of them larger. Made for funny programs.
Don't make fun of this. Some years ago, Microsoft had announced G# (German Sharp) - C# with German keywords and API. Of course, it was an April Fools joke, but the entire site about that looked so real and professional (and was on microsoft.com). Scary.
At work, we use two field bus systems, both developed in German-speaking countries, which have a scary mix of German and English for identifiers, including some lovely false friends. It's a mess.
No, English keywords and identifiers are fine. Though some might argue if it should be Color or Colour :)
In several VBA project I've worked on (yes, very early in my career) we had to detect the version of office which was installed on the user's machine and change the formulas used in the speradsheets accordingly.
As i program in portuguese"SUM" would have to be translated into "SOMA" and so on and so forth. I just can't imagine the necessary work to make this happen in several languages. Has anyone else suffered with this problem?
There are some languages that have translated keywords. Excel formulas, for example. If you write some calculations in a spreadsheet, this will be in your language.
Fortunately, this is not a general practice, and even non-English speakers like me thank God that there is a standard language for keywords :
it's easier to share you work.
it prevent documentation from becoming a bigger nightmare that it already is.
English words and sentences are usually short and syntactically pragmatic. In literature, Latin languages are much more beautiful, but for technical stuff, English rocks.
And where to stop ? Can you imagine a C in ancient Greek ?
Keywords must stay in one language, and well, it started with English, let it stay that way. This could have been worst (Asian language ?). And so we have to write methods and comments in English. Ok, more work for us, but at least the international code base stay congruent.
There is, however, one case where using native language method names and comments can be a good practice : in third world country. I'm going to Senegal in some months to manage a Django project. Senegal have a huge analphabetization rate, and therefor it's already great that they spead energy in improving they programming knowledge. French is the native language here, so it would be inefficient to force them to learn computing AND a new tongue at the same time.
BTW, that would be your code with French keywords :
Si (i < taille) {
cas par cas :
cas 1:
afficher "salut"
défaut:
afficher "non merci"
} sinon {
afficher "oui, merci"
}
Not that translating the keywords have nothing to do with translating the strings. Of course, we have "hi, there" translated in our language. European coders even tend to use I18N much more than American sot their service can reach a wider audience.
Generally speaking, most programmers adapt to the English form.
I learned to program when I was 7 years old and only spoke Hebrew (which is right to left) and with no english, which made it quite a fascinating experience.
The problem you would usually get is with documentation, variables, and function names. I have seen my share of variables in other languages using english alphabet.
The only language I'm familiar with that actually got translated was good old Logo (still amazing to this day).
When I was a kid we went to France, and in a museum we went to, I remember finding a display which showed you how to write computer programmes. The language was some kind of BASIC variant and I distinctly remember it using POUR instead of FOR, and so on. I was 7 years old and had only just learned BASIC, and it seemed completely natural to me that the French would have their own dialect like this!!
I guess it may have been LSE that I saw?
Filemaker's scripting language is localized. The scripts (and data!) are stored in a terrible "sorta canonical" form.
So if you write a script in the American version, then open it up in the French version, all the keywords and built-in function names will be in French. But why won't it run?! Aha! The French version uses "," as the decimal point, and therefore to avoid ambiguity uses ";" to separate function arguments -- where the American version uses "." and "," respectively. This conversion you have to do yourself.
So you work through the incredibly bad script editing interface (you can't write scripts as text files) to fix all these things. It runs! Great! The results are all wrong! Oh no! Aha! The Jan-7-2004 date you entered in the American version is being interpreted as July-1-2004 -- apparently dates are not only displayed but stored in locale-dependent order. Am I kidding you? No.
[Note: Filemaker 8 and 9 may be sane -- I only ever worked with 3 - 7.]
Your question is an interesting one with regard to Perl because it's syntax is designed to follow (English) natural language. I wonder if that makes it more difficult for non-English speakers...
Of course, Perl and Perlers refuse to play by conventional rules. Mad scientist Damian Conway wrote the Lingua::Romana::Perligata module which uses the black magic of source filters to allow you to write Perl in latin!
Here in Australia we still need to spell colour like color.
However, I do find it annoying when other (Australian) developers, working on an Australian project, decide that internal variable names need to be spelt the american way.
It would be pointless, IMHO, to i18n a language syntax. It would just kill any sort of portability.
The only exception are educational languages, such as LOGO. They were designed for ease learning, so portability is not an issue.
I read a lot of code, but the problem always is at variable/method names and comments, if they are commenting their code on their own language, using a language special characters like Japanese or Cyrillic, we are in trouble! but the keywords I think they will stay in English as they are.
in Italian
se (i < dimensione){
scegli
caso 1:
stampa "ciao"
mancante:
stampa "no, grazie"
} altrimenti {
stampa "sì, grazie"
}
To confirm the worries of some previous poster I've seen a Fortran code with a macro include to translate all the keywords from English to French. Allow me not to continue on this.
I also had to work with a code simultaneously containing identifiers in Italian, German, English and French, not only because it was developed in many different places, but also because the main developer thought it was fun and helped him not to duplicate identifier names (of course, with a routine 2000 lines long....)
I think WordBasic was localized. WordBasic was used to write macro's for in Word before VBA was used.
If I remember it correctly, only WordBasic written in the English version would execute on all localized version. If you would write a Dutch version, you could only execute it on a Dutch Word.