(please ignore my last 3 messages - I was just me having trouble sending this message - here is the complete message)
>now I'd suggest this one as more readable:
>
> nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ? 0 : n==2 ? 2 : 1;
>
>Niv, is this order of the translated strings what you want:
>
>msgstr[0] "Singular form"
>msgstr[1] "Plural form (including zero)"
>msgstr[2] "Dual form"
>
>Can we have this formula for now?
That's great, thank you.
>Now it's not clear to me what you mean about the "many" form.
>You wrote that it is correct not to use this form but it would
>be nicer to have it. If it would be nice then let's be nice,
>using more plural forms is not beyond our abilities!
as using the regular plural form is correct (seem natural to the user*),
it will only add unneeded extra complexity,
so we'd prefer to leave it for now.
meanwhile,
projects who want can do it manipulating the .po file header (as GNOME Software did)
for overall standard,
we can always turn over the world again at later time :)
>But for now I don't understand where the "many" form should be used:
>* for the numbers: 20, 30, 40, ..., 100, 110, 120, ...
>or
>* for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ...
the latter, for the numbers: 11, 12, 13, ..., 99, 100, 101, ... (n>10)
but again, using the regular plural form is correct*.
Thanks,
Niv
*user
reading in hebrew the sentence "2 days ago" translated as "לפני 2 ימים"
will get the filling this sentence is not natural and should be "לפני
יומיים"
user
reading in hebrew the sentence "20 days ago" translated as "לפני 20
ימים" will continue reading without paying attention that the form "לפני
20 יום" exists as well