Page 2 of 3
PostPosted: 03 Aug 2008, 11:28
by Litude
Thanks a lot for those corrections!
I noticed the word "Trainingshall" which can be translated as "Trainingshall". I guess this was the name of the deleted building?
Yeah, this building was deleted during the development of TSK.
PostPosted: 03 Aug 2008, 15:24
by Litude
Okay I did all those changes plus one bug with the text in the ware distribution menu.
One thing I noticed is that the text formatting is quite messy in the Dutch briefings of The Shattered Kingdom campaign (cutting words using "-" is done very often). I'm planning to change this or does someone object?
PostPosted: 03 Aug 2008, 17:30
by JBSnorro
Hhmmmm. the cutting of the word with the '-' is probably caused by the LIB-reader, from which I copy pasted.
PostPosted: 03 Aug 2008, 19:55
by Litude
No I didn't mean your scripts, the original briefings that appear in SR2 TSK campaign seem to be formatted in a completely weird way.
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2008, 11:11
by kuba11100
Font is good now, ? is one pixel moved down than other letters but it doesn't look bad (as I said, it's also almost unused)
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2008, 12:56
by Litude
Well it's at the same height as the ? and the ? letters, so I think it should be fine. I could move it upwards but that would mean squishing yet another line and using the small letter you posted.
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2008, 06:44
by The Dark Lord
116 - Verwoeste gebouwen: - Verwoestte gebouwen:
117 - Opgerichte gebouwen: - Opgerichtte gebouwen:
Wasn't the original ''verwoeste'' and ''opgerichte'' correct? I don't know how to explain this in English, so...: Is het niet ''verwoeste'' en ''opgerichte'' omdat het bijvoeglijk wordt gebruikt?
Secondly, it looks odd.
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2008, 10:03
by JBSnorro
116 - Verwoeste gebouwen: - Verwoestte gebouwen:
117 - Opgerichte gebouwen: - Opgerichtte gebouwen:
Wasn't the original ''verwoeste'' and ''opgerichte'' correct? I don't know how to explain this in English, so...: Is het niet ''verwoeste'' en ''opgerichte'' omdat het bijvoeglijk wordt gebruikt?
Secondly, it looks odd.
Hmm. You might have got a point there. To me the single 't' looks odd, and I just asked some people I know and that restulted in 5 to 1 for double t.... But hey, I don't know for sure.... As for your reason of "bijvoegelijk", I've never heard of that, but I never did pay attention in Dutch classes, I skipped most of them actually. XD
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2008, 11:17
by The Dark Lord
116 - Verwoeste gebouwen: - Verwoestte gebouwen:
117 - Opgerichte gebouwen: - Opgerichtte gebouwen:
Wasn't the original ''verwoeste'' and ''opgerichte'' correct? I don't know how to explain this in English, so...: Is het niet ''verwoeste'' en ''opgerichte'' omdat het bijvoeglijk wordt gebruikt?
Secondly, it looks odd.
Hmm. You might have got a point there. To me the single 't' looks odd, and I just asked some people I know and that restulted in 5 to 1 for double t.... But hey, I don't know for sure.... As for your reason of "bijvoegelijk", I've never heard of that, but I never did pay attention in Dutch classes, I skipped most of them actually. XD
I just googeled ''verwoeste'' and ''verwoestte'', and now I remember it. Read the following sentences:
''Slavernij verwoestte heel continent''
''De brand verwoestte alles''
''De verwoeste stad''
''De verwoeste gebouwen''
So it is both possible. It is just how you want it to be: are the buildings destroyed by you or someone else, then you should say ''verwoestte''.
But when the buildings just are destroyed and you could replace the'' bijvoeglijk naamwoord'' by another ''bijvoeglijk naamwoord'' (so ''verwoeste'' --> ''mooie'', for example), you should use ''verwoeste''.
I think. I'm not sure.
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2008, 16:32
by JBSnorro
Im not sure either.... so we'll just leave it as it is for now? Or we should use the original spelling, hoping the original creator knew what he was doing?
Anyway, if the original spelling is the correct one, then the 4th last word in 260 should be reset as well..
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2008, 18:20
by The Dark Lord
I have an other suggestion: change the order of the words! Instead of ''verwoeste gebouwen'' you could say ''gebouwen verwoest''. And then it would be ''eenheden gedood''.
(By the way, you say ''gedode eenheden'' and not ''gedoodde eenheden''
)
Or you could change ''verwoeste'' in ''vernietigde''. That is always correct.
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2008, 19:23
by Nick
didnt read all th etopics but im sure its with 1 t...
PostPosted: 10 Aug 2008, 19:27
by Litude
Okay, I'm going for "Verwoeste gebouwen:" and "Opgerichte gebouwen:".
PostPosted: 24 Aug 2008, 19:31
by Litude
Okay, I have some questions for anyone who speaks Dutch. When looking through the LIB file, I noticed that there's sometimes a space before "!" and ":" marks and sometimes not. Is it up to the individual case or is there some rule telling whether there should be a space before the marks or not?
PostPosted: 24 Aug 2008, 20:07
by The Dark Lord
No, it has nothing to do with individual cases or a rule. In fact, it is completely incorrect!
It should just be like this: and this!