Re: [l10n-cs] Date Format with month names in genitive case - your opinions?

[Милош Поповић <gpopac gmail com>]

It would be great to get the opinion from the entire language community,
although I didn’t get any reply from others for Serbian. Personally I think we
will benefit from this change, but it will initially make a huge mess.


У пон, 22. 01 2018. у 22:44 +0100, Rafal Luzynski пише:
> 22.01.2018 13:37 Милош Поповић <gpopac gmail com> wrote:
> > For Serbian (as well as for Bosnian, Montenegrian, Croatian) it would be for
> > the
> > best to keep %B as nominative and add %OB for genitive, since we would
> > require
> > nominative in great majority of cases and would make the transition towards
> > the
> > genitive less complicated and more smooth.
>
> Swapping the meaning of %B and %OB is impossible because it would
> also require swapping the meaning of MON_* and ALTMON_* in nl_langinfo().
>
> Regarding the Croatian language, I'm not really sure. Please see:
>
> https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/22._leden
> https://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/22._januar
> https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/22._%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B0%D1%80 (22.
> јануар = 22. januar)
> https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/22._janu%C3%A1r (22. január)
>
> So far so good, all nominative cases. But:
>
> https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/22._sije%C4%8Dnja (22. siječnja)
>
> Therefore I'd rather to hear from the proper translators for
> each language individually.
>
> > Serbian example:
> > January — januar
> > January 21st — 21. januar
> > Today is 21st January — Danas je 21. januar
> > Appointment on January 21st — Sastanak 21. januara
> > Visit your granny on January 21st — Poseti baku 21. januara
>
> This is understandable for me. The new specification says that
> %B is "the grammatical form required when the month is used as
> part of a complete date" and %OB is "the form required when the
> month is named by itself". It does not have to be genitive and
> nominative case, respectively. If in Serbian it is always the
> nominative case then let it remain as it is now. It's not obligatory
> to introduce the genitive case, it makes sense only if it is helpful
> for the language community and only if you find the current (old)
> implementation incorrect. That's why I'm asking first.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rafal