Hi all,
especially @spaceumko and @HeinrichJolla (https://together.jolla.com/users/9464/heinrichjolla/)
I came to the conclusion that the personal form of translation is more appealing, because it is my phone
I think this would apply to many other languages.
Hi deloptes,
ā¦relating to what problem or issue? and what language?
A different perspective is: on the other hand it is also my phone - a tool - and not my friend. So it should keep the tone professional.
Is there any specific issue youāre referring to?
I am referring to Bulgarian, but it definitely applies to German, Russian, Dutch, Italian, French as well and perhaps many other languages.
The English āyouā can be understood both ways, but I speak Bulgarian, German, Russian and Dutch. My wife Italian, Bulgarian, German, French.
She and I agreed that the personal form 2sg is more appropriate. 3pl sounds like in the clerks office 
As I was translating for Bulgarian I changed in most of the packages.
I wanted to hear your opinion.
Perhaps it makes sense to maintain one āpoliteā and one āfamiliarā translations
I donāt know Bulgarianā¦ In German 3sg would be er/sie/es, engl. he/she/it
2pl in German would be āihrā, engl. you (pl). In German this would be medieval age style. 
In German, āduā is 2sg.
As I know, until now SFOS style was always young and not so polite, more familiar than official. My opinion: I like this.
Thanks I swapped 2 and 3
So you confirm that 2sg is perceived better, thanks
As a native Bulgarian speaker, I prefer āpoliteā form. May be because of age - Iām 48 years old:-)
But there are other reasons that are not related to age and generation:
There are others, but in the end the personal preferences of the translator are also important:-)
I like this idea. Your phone should be formal until you invite it to be familiar.
āThee thous them as thous thee!ā as my father-in-law would say.
I understand the answer, but your argument is not relevant because āŠŃŠ³Š¾Š²Š¾ŃŠµŃŠµā can be interpreted also as an order. āŠŃŠ³Š¾Š²Š¾Ńā might be good choice.
I wonder if we can discuss this in the translation web site.
I was thinking about all of this and came to the conclusion the more familiar form is for me the form of choice.
If it goes into the next version, have a look and let me know, what you think.
The question is if the overhead can be managed and is also desired by Sailfish. Who can set it up? I recall there were pretty amusing localisations/translations of KDE. I am not sure if this is still the case.
BTW the translators decided to use the adverb āŠŠ°Š±ŠøŃŠ°Š½Šµā, āŠŠ¾Š·Š²ŃŠ½ŃŠ²Š°Š½Šµā, āŠŃŠ³Š¾Š²Š°ŃŃŠ½Šµā Šø Ń.Š½.
ŠŠ.
My opinion is that impersonal nouns should be used where possible.
Where is on the translation web site can this be discussed?
Pootle does not have/support discussions. So the right place is the āLocalisationā category on this very forum.
Just a few remarks on this question:
In theory this should apply to any language:
Please try to be informal if that feels natural in your language. Avoid mentioning pronouns.
Quoted from the Official Sailfish Localisation Style Guide (pick any language)
French for example uses āvousā, which is more formal but that depends on the language and cultural context. Although I have used French for long and found itās formal style natural, Iām not a native speaker so canāt really assess which style is more appropriate.
For German this discussion already happened. We follow the request from Jollaās guide lines and use informal voice (2nd person singular).
I have an opinion about translating: As a translator, my job is to translate as close to the original source as possible while making the text sound natural in the target language. Thatās actually the definition of Translation as a profession. My opinion is not so relevant for that job, but my skill.
So personally Iād stick to the informal translation as officially defined and provide a community package for a formal style if thatās requested by many.
But whatever you prefer and decide to pick: Write it down and create a dedicated style guide for Bulgarian. This way your translations stay consistent and the next generation of translators can build upon your work.
Thanks, this was good information. I will put it on the todo to read, learn and probably create a style guide, if no one has created already or will create before me.
BTW I also visited the department for translation at the local university, so the basics are clear.
As we live in a very polite world, I was trying to see if someone will be annoyed as I already updated most of the translation sources.
As there was opposition in using the 2.sg., I review the translations and revert back to 2.pl. where applicable.
As discussed in the translation interface we prefer using the adverb, where possible.
Iām fine with the informal ājijā in Dutch. Maybe itās because Iām relatively young, but Iāve never been addressed with the formal āuā and I personally only used to people I donāt know who are at least a generation older than me or in very formal settings. But I wouldnāt mind that much if the polite form was used in the translation either.
As long as the tone of the language tries to be somewhat in the direction of āIām helping you to getting things done togetherā, but doesnāt go to the direction of āHi, Iām your phone and your best friend. We can do anything together!ā and trying itās best to āappealā to the youth, itās fine for me. An example of the last could be if the string describing backups was something in the direction of āCreate a back-up to protect you personal data, like your documents, your music and your precious cat picturesā. That annoys the heck out of me.
I canāt tell about how the southern neighbours, the Flemish, feel about that, since from what Iāve noticed they seem to care a bit more about the honorific form than us, the Dutch, but I could be easily mistaken.
Thatās correct, we certainly align more with our southern neighbours in that regard. Then again, Flemish itself doesnāt even have any polite pronouns, everyone is just āgeā (or, of course, āgijā when stressed), āuā is just the object form. As it used to be in Dutch many centuries agoā¦
I think I got what I was asking for.
I went through the translations and fixed using the polite form. Apperently it looks like it is still preferred over the informal.
I fixed also many typos, missing commas and inconsistencies.
I hope now everybody will be happy