This sentence is weirs, because they didn't lose their houses "after" but "during" the earthquake, as the german properly conveys with "durch"

*weird

I agree that it's weird, but I translated from the Russian. Notice that I did not link my translation to any other languages.

I think it's a matter of writing style (it sounds ok to me)

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010...ians-wait.html

"One of the new camps in Port-au-Prince is ready to be used by needed families that lost their homes after the earthquake."

yes but in this case, "after the earthquake" might as well apply to the first leg of the sentence.
Logic and style can live together...

what's so illogical about this sentence? is it really necessary that we get literal about the way things are said...

that people didn't lose theyre homes "after" the earthquake, but "during" it...

I repeat what I said originally. I translated it from the Russian, where it is "after". I trust Hellerick's translations, and so that's probably how Russians would say it, with "after". It can probably be translated as "due to" as well, without any issues.

But there is nothing technically wrong with this translation... We can just as well say that the houses were damaged by the earthquakes, the people tried living in them, and ultimately could not, thus losing them. The official "loss" happened after the earthquake.

In any case, saeb has already shown an example of this used in recognized print, so why continue to bicker?

I'm not bickering. i'm debating translation quality which is the very purpose of this community...

For what it is worth, as an Anglophone I have no preference for 'during the earthquake' or 'after the earthquake' in this context.

When you point it out it seems a little unusual, but in normal print or speech (without prompting) I wouldn't notice anything wrong with it at all.

@sacredceltic:

Of course you're not bickering. It takes two or more people to do that...

@Benjameno:

I have a preference for "due to" actually, but yea, they can all be used, IMO. Thanks for yours.

@everyone:

After checking the Russian, I think the translation is perfectly fine. "Из-за землетрясения..." would be an alternative that means "due to the earthquake". I can't think of a Russian version of "during", but what Hellerick originally wrote does not convey "during", but rather "after".

And regarding "translation quality"...

Currently, 1200 users are responsible for roughly... 450,000 sentences. Do we really have time to debate nuances like this? If we do, and we believe in super-rigorous quality, then let's make an initiative to stop adding new sentences entirely and just correct the half-million we already have. Then, let's check all the links between them and debate the translation nuances on those as well in the name of "translation quality" (an astronomical number).

It won't happen.

I think, YES, we MUST take the time for quality translations otherwise we will come to regret it. I am convinced quality will seal the fate of this project!

The phrase is completely OK.

> that people didn't lose theyre homes "after"
> the earthquake, but "during" it...
Unless the earthquake is seen as a discrete event, duration of which is unimportant in this case.