We're updating the issue view to help you get more done.Learn more

Regional translations should fall-back to its parent translation (e.g. en-us to en)

One problem with the current way is that regional translations (e.g. en-us) are not treated any different than language-only translations (e.g. en).
Essentially I believe 'en-us' should only carry the changes from 'en' - falling back to en if a code is not defined in en-us.

Otherwise you need a whole set of new codes if you just want to adapt the spelling of one word.

Another grey area is that sometimes a translator might want two terms to express
one concept in the primary language.

A case encountered (by Peter Gummer) is that given a list of English personal forms
of address --Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, etc. -- a Spanish translator wanted two
translations of "Mr", namely "SeƱor" and "Don". He actually added an
extra internal code, with its own at-code.

Now this wish to capture nuances that don't exist in the primary
language strikes me as perfectly reasonable, but it's certainly stepping
outside the bounds of translation.



Thomas Beale


Sebastian Garde


Affects versions

AM version 1.4
AM version 2.0.6