I've been taking Spanish for a year or two now, and I decided to try using Scratch in Spanish for a day. After only a minute, I noticed that the verbs were in the wrong forms:

• Most blocks were using the verb infinitives. Shouldn't they be using the command forms? If not, why is the 'add [thing] to [list v]' block in command form?
  
  
• This may just be some grammar rule I don't know yet, but, for example, “when I receive” literally translates to “cuándo recibo,” but the current translation is “al recibir.” At the very least, recibir should be conjugated, right?
  
  
• The Spanish word for pen is boligrafo, but the current translation is lápiz, meaning pencil. Is this just because of word length?
  

I don't know enough Spanish to evaluate the first issue - it might be a computing convention to use infinitives rather than the command form, probably to avoid having to choose between tu and usted forms. I have certainly seen the like in Portuguese-language interfaces.

The other two definitely look like deliberate decisions by the translation team - everything working together in context is more important than having a literal translation.

BoBoBoBobTrOlL wrote:

I've been taking Spanish for a year or two now, and I decided to try using Scratch in Spanish for a day. After only a minute, I noticed that the verbs were in the wrong forms:

• Most blocks were using the verb infinitives. Shouldn't they be using the command forms? If not, why is the 'add [thing] to [list v]' block in command form?
  
  
• This may just be some grammar rule I don't know yet, but, for example, “when I receive” literally translates to “cuándo recibo,” but the current translation is “al recibir.” At the very least, recibir should be conjugated, right?
  
  
• The Spanish word for pen is boligrafo, but the current translation is lápiz, meaning pencil. Is this just because of word length?
  

But then, can't you use “pluma” for pen?

Also, shouldn't

 borrar :: pen 

be

 despejo :: pen 

or at least

 despejar :: pen 

?

-PL- wrote:

Also, shouldn't

 borrar :: pen 

be

 despejo :: pen 

or at least

 despejar :: pen 

?

Borrar is erase. I was unaware of any better verb.

GunChleoc wrote:

I don't know enough Spanish to evaluate the first issue - it might be a computing convention to use infinitives rather than the command form, probably to avoid having to choose between tu and usted forms. I have certainly seen the like in Portuguese-language interfaces.

I thought the tú and Ud. commands were the same, except for reflexives. I knew there was a difference between vosotros and Uds. forms, but I didn't know what.

GunChleoc wrote:

The other two definitely look like deliberate decisions by the translation team - everything working together in context is more important than having a literal translation.

I knew that, I was just wondering if there was any reason for wording it the way they did.

BoBoBoBobTrOlL wrote:

-PL- wrote:

Also, shouldn't

 borrar :: pen 

be

 despejo :: pen 

or at least

 despejar :: pen 

?

Borrar is erase. I was unaware of any better verb.

I think borrar is to erase while despejar is to clear. Maybe borrar is better, idk

-PL- wrote:

BoBoBoBobTrOlL wrote:

-PL- wrote:

Also, shouldn't

 borrar :: pen 

be

 despejo :: pen 

or at least

 despejar :: pen 

?

Borrar is erase. I was unaware of any better verb.

I think borrar is to erase while despejar is to clear. Maybe borrar is better, idk

Also, by "clear,“ I did not mean ”clear all."

BoBoBoBobTrOlL wrote:

GunChleoc wrote:

I don't know enough Spanish to evaluate the first issue - it might be a computing convention to use infinitives rather than the command form, probably to avoid having to choose between tu and usted forms. I have certainly seen the like in Portuguese-language interfaces.

I thought the tú and Ud. commands were the same, except for reflexives. I knew there was a difference between vosotros and Uds. forms, but I didn't know what.

There's a difference.

Tú: (affirmative) Habla.
Tú: (negative) No hables.

Usted: (affirmative) Hable.
Usted: (negative) No hable.

Source: This page on enforex.com