Does anyone have an extra key, redeem code or even a giftcard on Steam and wish to gift it for one of the titles from the list below ? Thank you.  A Plague Tale Requiem The Walking Dead The Division 2 Dying Light: The Beast Red Dead Redemption 1 GTA 5 Ceva din seria Call of Duty Ghost of Tsushima God of War 2018 PC God of War Ragnarok Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 Ceva din seria Sniper Elite  Uncharted varianta PC The Last of Us 2 Mafia The Old Country  Dead Island 2 Days Gone Ceva din seria Resident Evil Alien Isolation Ninja Gaiden Ceva din seria Prince of Persia Detroit Become Human Prototype 2 Aces of Thunder  Far Cry Primal Ceva din seria Wolfenstein Splinter Cell BlackList Batman Arkham Knight Mortal Kombat X Ceva din seria DeadSpace Ceva din seria Max Payne Left 4 Dead 1 sau 2

I have no reason to acknowledge any error in this case. It is an established fact that the Épinal-Erfurt glossary mentions the word 'tuun' in only two contexts, and that its only direct translation in this glossary is the Latin 'cors'. There is no explicit link in this glossary between the word 'tuun' and the concept of a village. There is, therefore, no reason to assume that 'conpetum' denoted a village solely based on the glossary. The dictionary I am criticizing (Murray’s New English Dictionary) uses the Épinal-Erfurt glossary to claim that both 'thorp' and 'tuun' meant 'village,' with the dictionary using one term to explain the other. I demonstrated this by examining both entries and tracing them back to their earliest sources, which refer to one another, a clear case of circular reasoning. They could have employed other arguments, but they did not. Consequently, my critique of this academic source is legitimate. If anyone wishes to argue that 'thorp' or 'conpetum' meant something along the lines of 'village' during that period, they must absolutely support that claim with an argument based on a body of evidence. The same criticism applies to the online edition of the Épinal-Erfurt Glossary that you're using. It offers a translation, but there's no explanation or justification. It's just a raw proposal. Once again, based solely on the glossary, it is difficult to argue that 'conpetum' and 'thorp' referred to a village. I am simply bringing this issue to light and offering an alternative interpretation that is entirely consistent with the primary sources (see below).  I think you are misunderstanding what I meant by an appeal to authority. My objection is not that you cite academic sources. I have cited academic literature myself throughout this discussion, and I fully recognize its importance. The problem is that you repeatedly cite their conclusions as if the authority of the source were enough to end the discussion, without explaining how those conclusions were reached or addressing the criticism being made against them. Once again, I want to emphasize this point. What is starting to frustrate me is not the fact that you cite academic sources. What I object to is the way you repeatedly present the conclusion of a dictionary or a scholarly work as if its authority were enough to settle the question, without examining the evidence or explaining the reasoning behind that conclusion. This is what I meant by an appeal to authority. I was not suggesting that citing specialists is inherently illegitimate. The problem arises when the citation is used as a substitute for an argument. Saying that a dictionary reconstructs 'þurpą' as 'village' establishes that this is an accepted interpretation, but it does not demonstrate why that interpretation is correct, nor does it answer a criticism of the evidence on which it may be based. That distinction is particularly important here because the interpretation of the sources is precisely what we are debating. If the reconstructed meaning 'village' was inferred partly from later West and North Germanic evidence, it cannot simply be projected back onto earlier or ambiguous attestations and then used to validate the original reconstruction. That creates a real risk of circular reasoning. The conclusion is treated as a premise, and the evidence is then interpreted through the conclusion it is supposed to establish. The same applies when an editor translates an ambiguous gloss as 'village' or 'hamlet'. That translation is relevant and deserves to be considered, but it remains an interpretation of the primary evidence. It does not make alternative readings illegitimate, especially when the words involved have broad semantic ranges and when other early attestations point toward agricultural land, estates, farms or dependent settlements. What I find unhelpful is the repeated attempt to short-circuit this discussion by answering a criticism of the sources with the authority of the very sources being criticized. Academic works are not beyond examination. Their conclusions can be questioned by looking at their premises, their choice of evidence and the semantic assumptions behind their translations. That is not a rejection of scholarship. It is how scholarship is supposed to be discussed. If you want to defend the interpretation 'village', then explain why the primary evidence supports it better than the alternatives. Show why the Gothic evidence should be considered innovative, why the agricultural and estate-related meanings should be secondary, and why the later collective meanings represent inheritance rather than parallel development or semantic expansion. Simply repeating that a dictionary or an editor adopts that interpretation does not answer those questions. I am perfectly willing to engage with academic sources, including sources that contradict my position. What I do not accept is the suggestion that questioning their reasoning is somehow illegitimate, or that citing their conclusion is enough to close the debate The source I am referring to is a primary source. The Harley Glossary is an 11th-century Anglo-Saxon manuscript (British Library MS Harley 3376) that pairs Latin headwords with Latin and Old English explanations. ‘competum .i. uilla, uel þingstow, uel þrop’ (from The Harley Latin-Old English Glossary published by Robert T. Oliphant) Here 'competum' is translated by 'villa' (farm, estate), 'þingstōw' (place of assembly) and by 'þrop' (or 'thorp')... I'm just pointing this out to show you that even several centuries later, 'conpetum' wasn't translated as 'town' or 'village'. It is translated as a place of assembly, a farm or an estate, and 'thorp'. This supports my point regarding the Épinal-Erfurt glossary: the equivalence between 'thorp' and 'tuun' might instead stem from the concept of an enclosure or courtyard. Which once again is supported by the explanation made by Isidore of Seville: Original: Conpita sunt ubi usus est conventus fieri rusticorum; et dicta conpita quod loca multa in agris eodem conpetant; et quo convenitur a rusticis. Translation: Conpita are the places where farmers usually gather; they are called conpita because many country roads converge there (conpetant) and because that is where the farmers meet. So here I am presenting an argument based on several sources simply to show that there may be another very credible and legitimate interpretation.  And the idea of challenging the conventional dictionary interpretation, that 'thorp' did not originally refer to a village but rather to a farm or an agricultural estate, is a view supported by other researchers.  For example, while you cited Ekwall for 'tuun', he himself wrote the following regarding 'thorp': OE þorp, þrop is a rare word, and its meaning is doubtful. It was certainly used in the sense ‘farm’, possibly in the sense ‘hamlet’. There is no reason to suppose that it meant ‘village’. [...] The original meaning of þorp was ‘newly reclaimed land, new settlement’. It should not be rendered by ‘village’, but rather by ‘farm’.

@ObélixI don’t think this will resolve every situation, but in my view, it can at least provide a framework for the discussion. I experienced many consequences and lost valuable contributions...

@Stan` You can shed some light on this for us and find the right balance. THANKS

This s a thread for Chinese (Taiwan) translation discussion. 各位 0 A.D. 的中文 (台灣) zh_TW 譯者你們好，非常感謝各位的翻譯貢獻！ 此討論串是為了討論翻譯的「一致性」問題。 由於 0 A.D. 的翻譯是由不同譯者在不同時間共同完成的，每個人的用語習慣有所不同，導致玩家在閱讀遊戲文本時，偶爾會發覺語句習慣不一致，進而影響遊戲體驗。 為了讓大家的翻譯風格更加統一，我在 Wiki 統整了基本的翻譯原則。然而，由於文本量龐大，無法一次將所有原則完整列出，因此我開啟了這個討論串，供大家提出疑問或建議。 另外，如果您對 Wiki 目前已列出的準則有任何意見，也歡迎在此討論是否需要修改。 由於 Gitea Wiki 的權限限制，需要官方授權者才能編輯，因此我會彙整大家的討論結果，代為編入 Wiki 中。 請大家將相關討論留在這個討論串，請勿直接在 Transifex 上開啟議題，以便集中討論。