Update ghost.json #22364
Update ghost.json #22364
Conversation
Small improvements in Dutch (switched from Flemish expressions to formal Dutch).
WalkthroughThe changes update the Dutch translations within the Suggested labels
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
Hello and thank you! @Nasnl ! @VirtualRoy or @dvdwinden , do you have a moment to review this small Dutch PR? When we get to tweaking words, I always like to have a native speaker look it over, instead of me and the AI! :) Thanks! ChatGPT is flagging the comma removal as incorrect, but I trust your Dutch more than it, for sure! :) |
Hi @cathysarisky! Regarding the switch from "kan" → "kunt" and "zal" → "zult", both forms are correct, but the updated version feels slightly more formal. It’s more a matter of preference rather than correctness. As for the removed comma, I don’t think it was necessary to remove it. In Dutch, commas are often used to make sentences easier to read and avoid ambiguity. While Nasnl’s version isn’t incorrect, I personally prefer the original structure as it flows better. Hope this helps! |
|
Hi @VirtualRoy and @cathysarisky, @VirtualRoy is right that all forms mentioned of the verb are possible in Dutch, and the original was not wrong, so it's more a subtle change than a correction. Yet, I plead for this small improvement for the following reason (I asked ChatGPT to formulate it short and powerful for me; you can check this independently from my opinion). In transactional emails the standard, grammatically correct form is "je kunt". This is because: Standard Conjugation: Context and Formality: Colloquial Usage: So, while even me would sometimes say 'je kan', I would never write it because it doesn't seem professional. For Ghost, even in informal settings, you would not want to run the risk that the owner looks less professional. The commas in the translations are used as they would be used in English writing, but not as in Dutch writing. In Dutch, commas are used less than English because the grammatic construction of sentences requires them to be used less, and the used translations are an example of that. Having said that, this is an even more subtle twist, so I'm not going to try to convince you, for running the risk of being seen as a 'taal-nazi' (that's Dutch for someone who goes too far in being right on language topics). ;-) Thanks for considering guys! Either way, it's good. |
|
These PR's should be so fun to audit, respect to you @cathysarisky! I should clarify that I agree with @Nasnl on "kan" → "kunt", "zal" → "zult". It's an improvement. |
|
Sometimes it is a little tedious, but I love that we can have Ghost in all the languages! :) So it sounds like there's good agreement on the verb changes. What shall we do about the commas? |
|
Hiya! Thank you for your work on this. Much appreciated. I agree with the changes regarding "kan" → "kunt", "zal" → "zult". I also agree that removing the commas is an improvement. (I work at Ghost full-time, and I think the removal of the commas makes for a slightly more to-the-point reading that matches our tone of voice more accurately). One thing I'm unsure about, though, is the following:
This technically says "If this request isn't yours, you can ignore this email", whereas the original says "If you did not make this request, you can safely ignore this email". The translation here seems a little off, and makes the request come across as a more passive occurrence (someone holding up a piece of paper they found on the floor, "is this yours?"), while in English the wording is quite active, implying an action has been taken. My suggestion would be to align it a little closer to the original by saying:
This makes it more active and more personal, reflecting the fact that this request was made by a person. |
|
@dvdwinden Yup, completely agree; that is a better translation and it delivers a better intent of the original message! |
|
@Nasnl Great! Feel free to make the change, and then it can be merged 👏 Thank you all for contributing with this level of detail. |
|
Sounds good! |
Small improvements in Dutch translations
|
@dvdwinden Thanks! Done. Making things better step by step. |
Small improvements in Dutch (switched from Flemish expressions to formal Dutch).