Съобщения: 35
Език: English
FourSpeed (Покажи профила) 30 септември 2009, 22:25:32
Further, in days of yore, LOAD and SAVE were appropriate in the sense of needing a stack of punched cards to be literally "loaded" into a hopper, and SAVE to actually write out the bytes to paper (or mag/cassette/cartridge tape) since there really wasn't much storage (in the sense of disk, or memory) as we have now.
So, SAVE in that sense really was in the context of "rescue" (from loss)
before the next program was loaded or power switched off.
To the original point, I like the "i" usage best as well, unless you really do intend to command the user to take some specific action.
Regards,
4
Donniedillon (Покажи профила) 01 октомври 2009, 13:19:02
To the original point, I like the "i" usage best as well, unless you really do intend to command the user to take some specific action.Agreed. To me "konservi" gives the impression of "To save press this button."
Hauxkins (Покажи профила) 01 октомври 2009, 17:42:59
Before that, I thought that the command form made more sense, as you are commanding the browser to do a certain thing.
Given that there is justification for each, surely either would be acceptable. Ŝajnas al mi, ke ambaǔ permeseblas.
Rob
darkweasel (Покажи профила) 04 октомври 2009, 09:21:24
ceigered (Покажи профила) 04 октомври 2009, 11:48:22
nshepperd (Покажи профила) 05 октомври 2009, 08:14:09
Incidentally I looked up this very question of -u vs -i back when I was doing translations for facebook, and I found myself on some forum for 'psychics', upon which this discussion was happening
. Iomete surpriza, but it answered the question for me! 
mnlg (Покажи профила) 08 октомври 2009, 18:33:49
Iĉo:Certain infinitive constructions require "to", such as "I want to swim", but others do not. For example don't say "I can to swim" or "I didn't to go".As for "can" (and "must"), I was taught that form to be irregular, just like those verbs are (there is no "to can", right? and what is its future tense?
.Also, but I might be wrong here, the "go" in "I didn't go" never really seemed to be the infinitive to me, more like a verb stem used in the negative form.
The infinitive is simply the basic form of the verb.I don't dream of correcting a native speaker, but I think the verb stem used in negation is its basic form. By adding "to" before it, you are making it less simple by definition
and it seems to be only English-speaking minds that think imperatives belong on buttons. Other languages use the infinitive.Italian uses imperative all the time. I am using firefox in its Italian localization now, and every one of its menu items are in the imperative ("Modifica", "Annulla", "Incolla"). This might be the reason why imperative looks more natural to me. If I were to find an infinitive ( "Modificare", "Annullare", "Incollare") I think I would expect to be redirected to a help page related to that topic, as in "[how] to modify", "[how] to undo", "[how] to paste". The imperative, at least in Italian, sounds to me like a proposal more than a command.
And if you remember that the "-u" form carries the meaning "should ~", having "-u" endings on button labels starts to seem a little silly.Well, "papero" also has the awfully silly meaning of "fragment of the pope", but I am not afraid to use it for its other, primary I should say, meaning.
When I'm working on an important document, I quite definitely should not delete it, so forigu is some pretty bad advice and I'd rather not see it.So you would accept, say, a "Konservu", for the same exact rationale? (btw, I can't remember a word processor with a "Delete" menu item, off the top of my head)
After all this discussion, I think Esperanto is elastic enough to accept nouns for menu items. "Sendo", "Modifo", "Algluo" could be accepted and understood just as fine.
ceigered (Покажи профила) 08 октомври 2009, 19:21:03
mnlg:As for "can" (and "must"), I was taught that form to be irregular, just like those verbs are (there is no "to can", right? and what is its future tense?I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but techincally 'go' in "I didn't go" is an infinitive (of topic, if 'do' was used in the positive sense as much as it is in the negative, it'd make English much easier grammatically
Also, but I might be wrong here, the "go" in "I didn't go" never really seemed to be the infinitive to me, more like a verb stem used in the negative form.
). "go" is in the infinitive and "do" conjugates and is negated instead. Even though it doesn't make sense, in English grammar terms "I didn't go" has the same structure as 'I can't go'. (Subject, verb, infinitive) although it certainly seems like a negative verb stem.As for "can" and "must", you're right that those two are used irregularly with 'to have to' ('hafta') and 'to able to' in English as the infinitives (which are actually different verbs in their own rights).
mnlg:Forgive me if I've misinterpreted something here due to lack of sleep (good stuff isn't it?) but I think Icxo was saying that the true infinitive of a verb is the verb without 'to' or any inflections, e.g. 'go', 'want', 'love', 'have' are all infinitives. (not that the "to" form of a verb is the 'basic' form of a verb). This'd of course stem from Middle English where we still had some remnants of conjugation (e.g. lufian ~ luve(n) ~ love). 'To' is an older germanic function for saying 'in order to' (in a much looser sense, compare with the Scandinavian language and Dutch).
Icxo:The infinitive is simply the basic form of the verb.I don't dream of correcting a native speaker, but I think the verb stem used in negation is its basic form. By adding "to" before it, you are making it less simple by definition
Sorry if I misunderstood the messages here or accidentally wrote everything in reverse haiku format, a bit tired (early morning).
mnlg (Покажи профила) 08 октомври 2009, 21:05:44
ceigered:Sorry if I misunderstood the messages here or accidentally wrote everything in reverse haiku format, a bit tired (early morning).Not at all, actually it's much clearer for me now. Thanks!
ceigered (Покажи профила) 09 октомври 2009, 16:27:48
Iĉo:Old English worked the same way.Ekzemploj:
Cuman (come), infinitive
Cum! - "Love"
Þu cymst - You come/you're coming
Þu canst cuman - You can come
Þu fandast cuman - You're trying to come
Ic hafige (ge)cumen/Ic hafige acumen - I've come.
(maybe be a bit wrong with 'fandast' but it appears to follow the same basic conjugation as lufian and hafian).
Iĉo judging by your avatar you must have the coolest hairdo out of all english-teachers ever!