At Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:32:13 -0800,
Andreas Raab wrote:
> 
> > But this kind of disambiguation was not big, compared to the lack of
> > inflection support it seems.  Workarounds included to edit one
> > occurence of 'start' with ' start ' and provide different translations
> > for 'start' and ' start ' etc. but real support for plural (and
> > gender... which is much harder) would have been good.
> 
> But that's weird. I mean it's not like you could translate a single word 
> without context anyway. Aren't you translating entire phrases? If the 
> phrases are reasonably complete this shouldn't cause a significant 
> problem I'd think (yes, there are probably situations where you need to 
> know about the subject matter i.e., 'Start {1}?' may be different 
> depending on whether the argument is the name of a thing or the name of 
> an activity but those should be rare, no?). Can you give an example or 
> two where you found this to be a problem?

  The earliest in the relatively recent discussion starting from:

http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/localization/2008-March/000726.html

and

http://tracker.squeakland.org/browse/SQ-139

-- Yoshiki

> Heh, heh. I'd say it gets best director, best movie, and special effects 
> for sure. I found the plot a bit ... predictable (well, it *is* a 
> Hollywood movie) but it was definitely enjoyable and the effects were 
> first class. Long though.

  For "a bit ... predictable", I also gathered from reviews that it
could be my impression before seeing it (well it is, in fact)... But,
all stereotypical stories were already told thousands of years ago
after all.  I'd say if it is done nicely, nothing wrong with picking
up such a "king's road" story...