On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:36, Alexey Shumkin <zapped@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Dmitry Potapov <dpotapov <at> gmail.com> writes: >> >> In the above sentence, 'ÐÐÐÐÑÑÑ' is not an introductory word, and thus >> no comma is required. For details, see #2 at >> http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F >> >> However, such use of 'ÐÐÐÐÑÑÑ' is more appropriate for colloquial speech >> than for documentation or even computer messages. Also, I have never seen >> 'unresolved conflicts' being translated as 'ÐÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÑÐ ÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÑÑ'. >> IMHO, the standard term is 'ÐÐÑÐÐÑÐÑÐÐÐÑÐ ÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÑÑ'. So my suggestion is: >> >> ÐÐÐÐ %s ÐÐÐÐÑ ÑÐÐÐÑÐÐÑÑ ÐÐÑÐÐÑÐÑÐÐÐÑÐ ÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÑÑ. >> But this would be wrong. It is absolutely not the original message tried to say. Any file can contain unresolved conflicts (markers). The point is: this particular file very likely does. > As I understand exact meaning of phrase "File %s seems to have unresolved > conflicts" (note *seems* word here) is a supposition. It is not > an equivalent of "may have" (but "may not have"). > So, I agree sentence must rephrased but supposition must be retained. > Something like "ÐÐÐÐ %s, ÐÐÑÐÐÐ, ÑÐÐÐÑÐÐÑ ÐÐÑÐÐÑÐÑÐÐÐÑÐ ÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÑÑ" While I like this one, it is not much better semantically, than the previous with punctuation corrected. So unless there are more votes for it, I will not resend the translation. Cannot forbid you from doing this, though (and personally would like to see a name of another native russian speaker in the authors of translations). > or better "ÐÑÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÑÐÐÑÐÐ ÑÐÐÐ %s ÑÐÐÐÑÐÐÑ ÐÐÑÐÐÑÐÑÐÐÐÑÐ ÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÑÑ" > (stay official but supposing) "Supposedly file "...? ÿô.nlj·Ÿ®‰†+%ŠË±é¥Šwÿº{.nlj· ŠßžØn‡r¡öë¨è&£ûz¹Þúzf£¢·hšˆ§~††Ûÿÿïÿ‘ê_èæ+v‰¨þ)ßø