Well, I'm not the one to do the castillian spanish translation, not an expert on that one .Marisa Kirisame wrote:I'm taking a look at the Spanish translation and I'm already seeing a couple problems, but it's probably because it's actually Latin American Spanish and it's throwing me off. Still, I could probably adjust some things (or also provide a castillian spanish translation).
I know Castillian Spanish uses a bit more "literal" meaning for most stuff, so maybe that's what threw you off with the ones I did?
But I wouldn't have a problem working with someone who wants to make the castillian spanish one and another column for the latin spanish one, the more complete stuff gets, the better for the community .
I changed the Spanish translation strings that didn't sound completely right to me, I also fixed orthography errors and some strings that lacked Capital letters, my idea was to leave most strings as their original English counterparts, if a word has a Capital letter in English, keep it on the Spanish translation.Graf Zahl wrote:The original translation was supposed to be neutral, but I cannot say what Firebrand did there. If you want to proofread, I think it's best to take a version from before his first edit and compare.
As I said I wouldn't have a problem with that, what I would suggest is to add a new column for Latin Spanish and copy every string there, once the person working on Castillian Spanish is done with their edits, I could compare both columns and remove the "duplicate" strings, to leave only different ones in that column .Graf Zahl wrote:The rule here should be that the Spanish master table should be Castilian and the Latin American variants be handled like the British English where only the differences get a separate entry.
My only question would be, which language code would the new column have to use? "esn"?