Inconsistent RBNF Data?

[Kent Karlsson]

Right, I misread.

I note that both Spanish and Portuguese has "ciento" as corrections to the
"-feminine" cases. Seems to be mostly correct (even if slightly
counterintuitive for those of us that have not grown up with Spanish)...

Though it is not entirely universal:

* 
http://libraryofthewolves.blogspot.se/2012/06/cienta-o-ciento-como-es-correc
to.html   (though in this regards only refers to Spanish as spoken in
Dominicana...)

* 
http://www.monografias.com/trabajos89/barrick-gold-cotui/barrick-gold-cotui.
shtml   (Dominicana again, written, not just a reference)

* http://documents.mx/documents/lizania-55a93191902ba.html  (anthology,
Spanish author)

(Note also that "sienta"/"siento" is sometimes misspelled as
"cienta"/"ciento", in case you do a search.)

RBNF for es-DO maybe should keep the "cienta" for feminine...

/Kent K


Den 2016-11-08 22:18, skrev "Steven R. Loomis" <srl at icu-project.org>:

> It¹s not a reversed patch, it just claims that it should be ciento for 101
> and NOT cienta.
> 
> -s
> 
> El 11/8/16 12:56 PM, "CLDR-Users en nombre de Kent Karlsson"
> <cldr-users-bounces at unicode.org en nombre de kent.karlsson14 at telia.com>
> escribió:
> 
>> Re: Inconsistent RBNF Data?
>> 
>> My question is if the corresponding patch should be applied for Portuguese,
>> which currently use "cento" also for the feminine case.
>> 
>> BUT NOTE THAT: The current version for Spanish has that patch reversed,
>> according to CLDR Ticket #6461 <http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/6461>.
>> 
>> /Kent K
>> 
>> Den 2016-11-08 20:27, skrev "Steven R. Loomis" <srl at icu-project.org>:
>> 
>>> It can be helpful give some ICU source code, and which version is being
>>> used.
>>> 
>>> But probably relevant is http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/changeset/9025 ­
>>> perhaps you are comparing an ICU older than this commit?
>>> 
>>> -s 
>>> 
>>> El 11/8/16 10:43 AM, "CLDR-Users en nombre de Cameron Dutro"
>>> <cldr-users-bounces at unicode.org en nombre de cameron at lumoslabs.com>
>>> escribió:
>>> 
>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm running into a strange inconsistency between ICU's output and the data
>>>> available in CLDR when formatting numbers using RBNF rules.
>>>> 
>>>> One specific example is the spellout-cardinal-feminine rule set in Spanish.
>>>> In CLDR v30 
>>>> <http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/browser/tags/release-30-d05/common/rbnf/es.xm
>>>> l#L128>  and v29
>>>> <http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/browser/tags/release-29/common/rbnf/es.xml#L1
>>>> 28> , the rule for 101 is "ciento" which is incorrect for the feminine
>>>> case. ICU however formats feminine spellouts correctly by using "cienta."
>>>> 
>>>> Where in the world is ICU getting its data? Why does it appear as if ICU
>>>> isn't actually using the currently available CLDR data?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your help,
>>>> 
>>>> -Cameron
>>>> _______________________________________________ CLDR-Users mailing list
>>>> CLDR-Users at unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CLDR-Users mailing list
>>> CLDR-Users at unicode.org
>>> http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users
>> _______________________________________________ CLDR-Users mailing list
>> CLDR-Users at unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/cldr-users/attachments/20161109/90e729bb/attachment.html>