Surfing the net to get some references to put into an article about free software I was writing for my web page, I've been on the site of opensource.org.
I was surprised to notice that on the French translation of their definition of open source software (version 1.9) they translated the term "open source" as "logiciel libre", wich is the exact translation of "free software". This is not the case - for example - on the Spanish translation which is "Código Fuente Abierto". For the Italian version it is even not translated.
Pointers: English: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html French: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd-francais.html Spanish: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd-spanish.html Italian: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd-italian.html
Most of the time in France we do not translate the term if we want to refer to "open source" but we may say "logiciel libre" to refer to "free software". The exact translation of "open source" would rather be "sources ouvertes", but we do not use it.
I prefer to speak of "logiciel libre " to refer to "free software" (see the "we speak about free software campaign"). But if the "official translation" of "open source" is also "logiciel libre", it will be a bit harder for French free software supporters to explain people what is the difference (if any) between those 2 concepts and why on term should be preferred to the other.
Any advice?
Guillaume Ponce http://www.guillaumeponce.org/
|| On Wed, 15 May 2002 14:06:49 +0200 (MEST) || Guillaume Ponce contact@guillaumeponce.org wrote:
gp> Any advice?
Translating "Open Source" with "logiciel libre" seems absurd.
Maybe it would be good to sent them mail congratulating on the increased awareness by speaking about Free Software as suggested in the "We speak about Free Software" campaign instead of using the term "Open Source" which would translate to "sources ouverte" in French.
Regards, Georg
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 1:06 pm, Guillaume Ponce wrote:
I prefer to speak of "logiciel libre " to refer to "free software" (see the "we speak about free software campaign"). But if the "official translation" of "open source" is also "logiciel libre", it will be a bit harder for French free software supporters to explain people what is the difference (if any) between those 2 concepts and why on term should be preferred to the other.
Any advice?
In English, "free" means either "without resriction" or "without price".
This means "free software" can be seen as ambiguous: does it mean free as in speech, or as in beer? Hence the term "open source" was invented. (Unfortunately, this also is ambiguous, and can be interpreted as meaning "you can see (but not necessarily alter) the source").
But in French, there is no ambiguity, one can say "libre" or "gratuit". So there is no linguistic force pushing for a separate term.
Personally, I think "freedom software" would be a good term, since it loses the ambiguity.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:00:47PM +0100, phil hunt wrote:
Personally, I think "freedom software" would be a good term, since it loses the ambiguity ...
... and gramatical correctness.
Didn't stop "freedom food", did it?
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 11:12 pm, MJ Ray wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:00:47PM +0100, phil hunt wrote:
Personally, I think "freedom software" would be a good term, since it loses the ambiguity ...
... and gramatical correctness.
Didn't stop "freedom food", did it?
What's that?
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 7:21 pm, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:00:47PM +0100, phil hunt wrote:
Personally, I think "freedom software" would be a good term, since it loses the ambiguity ...
.... and gramatical correctness.
On the contrary, "freedom software" *is* grammatically correct, even if it is a bit odd-sounding. The grammar-rule in question is something like:
noun_expression : modifier noun
modifier : adjective | noun
IOW, an ordinary noun can be used as a modifier.
You can tell whether a modifier is an adjective by seeing if it can be used after "be". Examples:
"the red car" > "the car is red"
Therefore "red" is an adjective
"the image conversion" > *"the conversion is image"
Therefore "image" is a noun
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:27:06AM +0100, phil hunt wrote:
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 7:21 pm, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:00:47PM +0100, phil hunt wrote:
Personally, I think "freedom software" would be a good term, since it loses the ambiguity ...
.... and gramatical correctness.
On the contrary, "freedom software" *is* grammatically correct, even if it is a bit odd-sounding. The grammar-rule in question is something like:
noun_expression : modifier noun
modifier : adjective | noun
IOW, an ordinary noun can be used as a modifier.
You can tell whether a modifier is an adjective by seeing if it can be used after "be". Examples:
"the red car" > "the car is red"
Therefore "red" is an adjective
"the image conversion" > *"the conversion is image"
Therefore "image" is a noun
Your grammar is flawed, as it: * allows many ungrammatical contructions * has one rule for different relations
Relation in 'image conversion' is: image conversion ::= conversion that-acts-on image
Relation in 'red car' is: red car ::= car is red
So in 'freedom software' it will be: freedom software ::= software that-acts-on freedom
What makes no sense.
You can use some nouns as adjectives, for example noun 'computer' can be used in some contexts as adjective 'computer' (computer program), but word 'freedom' can't because it's adjective form is 'free'. That's why the proper form is 'free software' not 'freedom software'.
On Thursday 16 May 2002 12:40 am, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:27:06AM +0100, phil hunt wrote:
On the contrary, "freedom software" *is* grammatically correct, even if it is a bit odd-sounding. The grammar-rule in question is something like:
noun_expression : modifier noun
modifier : adjective | noun
IOW, an ordinary noun can be used as a modifier.
You can tell whether a modifier is an adjective by seeing if it can be used after "be". Examples:
"the red car" > "the car is red"
Therefore "red" is an adjective
"the image conversion" > *"the conversion is image"
Therefore "image" is a noun
Your grammar is flawed, as it:
- allows many ungrammatical contructions
- has one rule for different relations
Relation in 'image conversion' is: image conversion ::= conversion that-acts-on image
Relation in 'red car' is: red car ::= car is red
So in 'freedom software' it will be: freedom software ::= software that-acts-on freedom
I think you are confusing syntax with semantics here. A better expansion for
<modifier> <noun>
might be:
<noun> having-something-to-do-with <modifier>
In other words, it can express lots of different sorts of relationships. Examples:
opening positions [in chess] = positions in the opening peace conference = a conference to discuss / bring about peace email headers = headers in an email communication system = a system for communication
etc.
What makes no sense.
You can use some nouns as adjectives, for example noun 'computer' can be used in some contexts as adjective 'computer' (computer program),
No. As I have noted, "computer" here isn't an adjective, it is a modifier.
but word 'freedom' can't because it's adjective form is 'free'. That's why the proper form is 'free software' not 'freedom software'.
The correct grammar of any language is that grammar which native speakers actually use. So, do native English speakers actually use "freedom" a a modifier? It appears they do; Mark Ray has already mentioned the example of "freedom food".
phil hunt wrote:
The correct grammar of any language is that grammar which native speakers actually use.
Hmm. That sounds a bit like "The best software/OS for a computer is that software or OS which computer users actually use"
I'm not sure that I'd agree with either statement ;-)
- Richard
Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
You can use some nouns as adjectives, for example noun 'computer' can be used in some contexts as adjective 'computer' (computer program), but word 'freedom' can't because it's adjective form is 'free'.
No-one is suggesting that it is. I think the suggestion was that "freedom software" is a compound noun, not that "freedom" is an adjective here. Indeed, the difference to an adjective was shown.
If "freedom software" is "ungrammatical", do you also complain that "freedom food" is too? If not, consider that an example of your relation:
freedom food == food from-the-idea-of freedom freedom software == software from-the-idea-of freedom
Maybe a pattern could be extended to: mob rule == rule from-the-idea-of mob or there's probably a better example...
That's why the proper form is 'free software' not 'freedom software'.
I doubt that grammar inspired the selection of the term that much.
Probably this is enough language games for now. As long as we all agree that the important things to communicate are the freedoms, we can disagree over the best ways to do that.
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:53:45AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Probably this is enough language games for now. As long as we all agree that the important things to communicate are the freedoms, we can disagree over the best ways to do that.
Going back to the original message, the issue was how to translate "free software" and "open source" into French. Regardless of the correctness of those terms or the convenience to replace them by others, there are historic documents that talk about one, the other or both. Obviously, the two terms should not be translated identically, or you will end up with translated documents that make no sense (those that talk about the differences of the two movements).
A fact that we have to live with is that a word that has several meanings in one language cannot be translated by another word that has exactly the same meanings in the other language. Therefore, I think "logiciel libre" is a good translation of "free software" and "sources ouvertes" or something else should be used to translate "open source".
Regards, Jaime
Jaime E . Villate villate@fe.up.pt wrote:
[...] Obviously, the two terms should not be translated identically, or you will end up with translated documents that make no sense (those that talk about the differences of the two movements).
Sometimes it is unavoidable. I seem to remember being told that Anglia and England both translate into French as the same word (Angleterre), but I'm unsure if that is correct. (Please tell me off-list if you know ;-) )
Here it does seem rather avoidable, though. Maybe it's Open Source supporters realising they're pointless in a particular language arena which didn't have the language motive for their term?
phil hunt philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
"the image conversion" > *"the conversion is image" Therefore "image" is a noun
ITYM "image conversion" is the noun?
On Thursday 16 May 2002 12:46 am, MJ Ray wrote:
phil hunt philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
"the image conversion" > *"the conversion is image" Therefore "image" is a noun
ITYM "image conversion" is the noun?
That phrase is a noun-expression. Both "image" and "conversion" are nouns.
phil hunt philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Thursday 16 May 2002 12:46 am, MJ Ray wrote:
ITYM "image conversion" is the noun?
That phrase is a noun-expression. Both "image" and "conversion" are nouns.
But I think "image conversion" is a noun too, but a sort of compound noun. A noun expression can contain adjectives too, I thought. Is that right, or do I have to go digging through the linguistics books...?
On Thu, 16 May 2002, MJ Ray wrote:
phil hunt philh@comuno.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Thursday 16 May 2002 12:46 am, MJ Ray wrote:
ITYM "image conversion" is the noun?
That phrase is a noun-expression. Both "image" and "conversion" are nouns.
But I think "image conversion" is a noun too, but a sort of compound noun. A noun expression can contain adjectives too, I thought. Is that right, or do I have to go digging through the linguistics books...?
It's a compound nominal, yes. That's perfectly valid in modern English, and there's a similar thing in German (where you concatenate the words). In French, the preference is strongly for X de Y, rather than Y X or YX.
You can analyse the English thing as "the first noun is acting as an adjective" or say that there's a rule "noun + noun -> noun" [*]. I think I'd say the latter, these days.
Mk
[*] or if I'm being nostalgic, "nbar + nbar -> nbar"