Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Literal translations in translation tables
Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Literal translations in translation tables. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Literal translations in translation tables, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Literal translations in translation tables in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Literal translations in translation tables you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Literal translations in translation tables will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Literal translations in translation tables, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
to polish a turd = to dry ice
I remembered an actual example that I find funny. In my experience, in Portuguese, I believe we would translate polish a turd as enxugar gelo, which means "to dry ice".
This is one reason why I intend to support this vote, it feels kind of different using a expression that invokes fecal matter and another that doesn't. In the translation table of polish a turd, I would like to place enxugar gelo with the proper commentary: literally, " to dry ice". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Please remove proposal 2
It is a technical issue and not a matter of policy. If proposal 1 passes there is no reason it shouldn't be done. --WikiTiki89 01:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Fine by me, I just placed that proposal 2 because there was one comment in the BP discussion defending the use of
{{gloss}}rather than a lit= parameter. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Done --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see. In that case, the question should have been whether the backtranslation should be displayed as a "gloss" (with an example of what that looks like) or as "literal translation" (with an example of what that looks like), without any reference to template parameters. But regardless, I think that would be better off in a later vote, and only if the issue actually comes up again. --WikiTiki89 01:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
