Apple localizes 'Trash' to 'Rubbish' in iOS 9, promotes Apple Watch with a 'rickroll'

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 57
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member
    English is only my third (or fourth, if Latin does count) language, so I have no strict ideas. My problem with "rubbish" is that I normally use it as a synonym for "nonsense". Subsequently I am more likely to confuse it with "junk" or "spam" and might instinctively move stuff to the wrong place.
  • Reply 22 of 57
    Apple could go one better for us Aussies. When entering email addresses, holding down the dot button brings up options like .com, .co, .au, and even .co.uk, but why not have the option of selecting .com.au? For each location it would be a great idea to include the most common suffix, don't you think?
  • Reply 23 of 57
    Using Trash in the UK is ok, it can be used as a verb or noun ins way rubbish can't. To rubbish a document would mean to suggest it wasn't very good. To trash it would mean to throw it away. Once thrown away it might be junk, trash, waste or rubbish (in reverse preference for me) but there's no doubting trash seems to cover more potential bases. No need to 'move to trash' like you would need to 'move to rubbish', the shortened 'trash' does it all.

    Having said that I rather think that having 'excuse me dear fellow, would you mind awfully removing this ghastly object from my sight old bean?' Is preferred by most…

    But seriously, am I the only one who actually thinks 'recycle bin' isn't actually best? It's indicative of an action and a location, and who cares if it's a Windows thing, I prefer that.
  • Reply 24 of 57
    Originally Posted by saarek View Post

    Wish they'd do that for the UK too. We don't use the word trash here either.

     

    “Junk” ought to be “Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Eggs Bacon and Spam”.

  • Reply 25 of 57
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wdowell View Post



    Trash sounds hideous to me as a Brit, but we're getting americanised so many people don't care now.



    Me too. I'd like "rubbish" please to join the Aussies and sound more English. Otherwise just "Bin" would be good. 

  • Reply 26 of 57
    zabazaba Posts: 226member
    In the UK we use Bin, put it in the bin. It's the shortened word for dustbin. We have dustbin men who collect the rubbish or bin men. Bin is the receptacle for rubbish, trash, or whatever you want to call it. It's actually wrong to call the receptacle trash or waste or rubbish because that's the stuff you put in it. The early Mac localisation was wastebasket,
  • Reply 27 of 57
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,267member
    Actually Aussies use 'bin' too. You put the rubbish in the bin, but when you put the bin on the footpath, you take out the rubbish. Simples!
  • Reply 28 of 57
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member

    "Rubbish bin" is the most common term in Australia, so iOS 9 in correct. Ubuntu (on the desktop) has called it the rubbish bin for years.

  • Reply 29 of 57
    irelandireland Posts: 17,799member

    The rick roll easter egg would have been far better if Apple hadn't have done it already in another way. This once mentioning the song would have been enough.

  • Reply 30 of 57
    Americans have to keep things shorter. I mean seriously did they really need to take the 'I' out of aluminium? That extra letter/syllable must've been a killer... Oh and do me a favour/favor and don't labour/labor too hard removing the 'u'. Of course don't forget to change the 's' to 'z' everywhere although for the lazy Americans 'z' is appropriate cos, well, 'zzzzz'.
  • Reply 31 of 57
    I prefer the new American word for trash - basura.
  • Reply 32 of 57
    spod wrote: »
    Oh and do me a favour/favor and don't labour/labor too hard removing the 'u'. .
    As I understand it, those superfluous 'u's were added in an attempt by the British to be more French.
  • Reply 33 of 57
    tokyojimu wrote: »
    As I understand it, those superfluous 'u's were added in an attempt by the British to be more French.
    Probably a never ending debate that one ;-). This link below was an interesting read, including the comments from readers at the end. http://m.wisegeek.com/why-does-british-spelling-keep-the-u-in-words-like-colour.htm
  • Reply 34 of 57
    recronin wrote: »
    Actually it says "UP YU VE GI NA"

    Bwahahahaha! Nice! Funny Apple never noticed that before..
  • Reply 35 of 57
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    I think it's a bit rich calling a localisation an "easter egg".  If it was a completely different language then the translations wouldn't be an easter egg.  US English, British English, Australian English, other Englishes, all similar, but definitely different, and requiring as much attention in localising as altogether different languages.

  • Reply 36 of 57
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    Get really daring and call it /dev/null.

    1000
  • Reply 37 of 57
    spod wrote: »
    Americans have to keep things shorter owing to their limited IQ. I mean seriously did they really need to take the 'I' out of aluminium? That extra letter/syllable must've been a killer...
    They didn't. "Aluminum" is the original title of the element as published by Sir Humphrey Davy (himself a Brit) in 1812. It was only later that you guys decided you needed to add an "i" in there, as apparently just ending with "um" doesn't sound "elementy" enough. Why you didn't similarly object to platinum, molybdenum, tantalum, or lanthanum is something we'll never know.
  • Reply 38 of 57
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TokyoJimu View Post





    As I understand it, those superfluous 'u's were added in an attempt by the British to be more French.

    As a Scot, we over-pronounce everything (when talking proper English) so to me "Colour and Flavour" sound different from "Color and Flavor".

     

    Also as a Scot, we can't pronounce that American name "Carl/Karl" without it sounding like the female name Carroll, the English can do it easily enough though. :P

  • Reply 39 of 57
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Durandal1707 View Post



    They didn't. "Aluminum" is the original title of the element as published by Sir Humphrey Davy (himself a Brit) in 1812. It was only later that you guys decided you needed to add an "i" in there, as apparently just ending with "um" doesn't sound "elementy" enough. Why you didn't similarly object to platinum, molybdenum, tantalum, or lanthanum is something we'll never know.

     

    Well, he originally published it as "alumium" in 1808, and later changed his mind. So, insisting on "original" makes both spellings in use wrong. Let's just say that it doesn't really matter.

  • Reply 40 of 57
    dreyfus2 wrote: »
    Well, he originally published it as "alumium" in 1808, and later changed his mind. So, insisting on "original" makes both spellings in use wrong. Let's just say that it doesn't really matter.
    Regardless, "aluminum" came before "aluminium," and that name was given by a respected and influential scientist who happens to be the guy who discovered the stuff. "Aluminium" came later, apparently by an anonymous (according to Wikipedia) contributor to the Quarterly Review, which Wikipedia calls a "literary and political periodical" (so, not even a scientific journal), who felt snobby about an element name not ending with "ium", although inconsistently so, since he didn't go and change the handful of other elements that end with "um", just this one.

    So: Sir Humphrey Davy on one hand, anonymous contributor to a magazine on the other. I know which of the two I'd consider more authoritative, myself.
Sign In or Register to comment.