### Author:  [@Don](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Don)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2024, 5:09am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/issue-with-pluralized-count-translation-override/316019/8 "2024-07-16T05:09:32Z")
Hello 👋
Thanks for checking it. ❤
> [@Lhc\_fl](#):
>
> Can I ask, does Hungarian have any plural forms?
Well, in Hungarian we have plural but not always which makes it little difficult. But let me explane some simple examples.
Most of Hungarian words have plural version.
If it’s uncountable.
E.g.
Group → Groups = Csoport → Csoportok
Topic → Topics = Téma → Témák
So it think that external library is correct in that we have plural form.
But we don’t use plural if there is a number (count) before words.
If it’s countable.
E.g.
1 group → 2 groups = 1 csoport → 2 csoport
1 topic → 2 topics = 1 téma → 2 téma
* * *
If you check the Hungarian language file you can see the plurals are always the same.
Hovewer I see there are strings which is not use `count` on form `one`.
Like this:
>
It’s ok because we don’t need the count in this case when only 1 topic it’s pretty obvious. But the other one difference here is only that the `other` is appears a number. The text is same no matter there is number or not.
* * *
So if you ask me I just would remove the `one` form.
But if it’s coming from an external library which is I think correct, because Hungarian have plural form but not most of cases that Discourse uses. So probably adding the `one` form to have the abality to customize it would be the easiest solution to prevent the issues. Yeah it is mooostly same but at least we can customize it in admin.
I don’t know it’s a hard question. As everyone who running a Hungarian forum and made customization in admin have been changed only the `other` form. Because it fell back to `other` from `one` always. So if we add the `one` form, admins have to review again all of the plural strings to modify that version too to be the same as `other`.
Thanks 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Lhc\_fl](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Lhc_fl)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2024, 7:19am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/issue-with-pluralized-count-translation-override/316019/9 "2024-07-16T07:19:44Z")
Thank you for your detailed response! Bug fix have been merged:
[https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/27933](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/27933)
The fix adds `:one` form for Hungarian. Future crowdin translators may can try to remove %{count} for singular to make it look different from the `:other` form.
---
### Author:  [@Don](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Don)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2024, 7:52am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/issue-with-pluralized-count-translation-override/316019/10 "2024-07-16T07:52:57Z")
Thanks for the quick fix. ❤
> [@Lhc\_fl](#):
>
> Future crowdin translators may can try to remove %{count} for singular to make it look different from the `:other` form.
I think it’s ok, the `%{count}` is nicely follow the English locale. Which also don’t use `%{count}` in some plural strings `one` form. Now the change is only we can edit the `one` form in admin too which is enough I think in this case. I think if it’s work correctly no need to other changes. I’ll update soon to test it. 🙂
Seems everything works excellent 🙂 That was a great pastime to change all these but I almost done with it. 😄 Thanks again and thank you @Moin too to point this out. ❤
---
### Author:  [@Lhc\_fl](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Lhc_fl)
#### Post date: [July 18, 2024, 7:53am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/issue-with-pluralized-count-translation-override/316019/11 "2024-07-18T07:53:28Z")
This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
---
### Author:  [@david](https://meta.discourse.org/u/david)
#### Post date: [July 22, 2024, 12:12pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/issue-with-pluralized-count-translation-override/316019/12 "2024-07-22T12:12:36Z")
Tracking the wider issue at [Inconsistency in plural definition](https://meta.discourse.org/t/inconsistency-in-plural-definition/317456)