Talk:Campione!:Volume 5 Chapter4 - Revision history

Mane at 01:04, 22 September 2012

2012-09-22T01:04:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:04, 22 September 2012
Line 21:		Line 21:

	--[[User:Zzhk\|Zzhk]] ([[User talk:Zzhk\|talk]]) 11:09, 21 September 2012 (CDT)		--[[User:Zzhk\|Zzhk]] ([[User talk:Zzhk\|talk]]) 11:09, 21 September 2012 (CDT)





	The "which..." modifier can only apply to office. If the sentence were in passive, it would apply to desk. A comma ensures the "which..." portion only applies to the last word before the comma. Generally, "which" requires a comma before it, and (correct) use of "which" without a comma generally indicates poor sentence construction. It's really another flow issue because a passive sentence is more difficult to read.		The "which..." modifier can only apply to office. If the sentence were in passive, it would apply to desk. A comma ensures the "which..." portion only applies to the last word before the comma. Generally, "which" requires a comma before it, and (correct) use of "which" without a comma generally indicates poor sentence construction. It's really another flow issue because a passive sentence is more difficult to read.
Line 45:		Line 49:

	On some of my edits:		On some of my edits:

	1. "Just" v. "completely" slacking off: the issue is whether the web surfing activities are incidental to his intelligence gathering. If they are, then "completely" would be wrong because that word implies that Amakasu devotes a portion of his working day to non-work activities. "Just" is more vague on this distinction, and that is desirable because the subsequent dialogue does not clearly settle the matter.		1. "Just" v. "completely" slacking off: the issue is whether the web surfing activities are incidental to his intelligence gathering. If they are, then "completely" would be wrong because that word implies that Amakasu devotes a portion of his working day to non-work activities. "Just" is more vague on this distinction, and that is desirable because the subsequent dialogue does not clearly settle the matter.

	2. "Sure enough" usually goes with events that occur in the present; it conveys movement in time. Erica's observation that Amakasu is observant must occur <i>before</i> she smiles. Otherwise, the smile would not be expressed. Similar, Ena's use of "sure enough" would be incorrect because she does not mean to convey that some event is occurring.		2. "Sure enough" usually goes with events that occur in the present; it conveys movement in time. Erica's observation that Amakasu is observant must occur <i>before</i> she smiles. Otherwise, the smile would not be expressed. Similar, Ena's use of "sure enough" would be incorrect because she does not mean to convey that some event is occurring.

	3. I interpreted "love communism" as "[verb] [noun]," so it was unintelligible to me. It was obvious to read words in their plausible meaning before making up new words. The hyphen really helps to clear out any confusion.		3. I interpreted "love communism" as "[verb] [noun]," so it was unintelligible to me. It was obvious to read words in their plausible meaning before making up new words. The hyphen really helps to clear out any confusion.

	4. "But the first requirement is that they accept Erica's superior position." "They" should be "she" because the previous sentence refers to "some<i>one</i>" (singular, emphasis added).		4. "But the first requirement is that they accept Erica's superior position." "They" should be "she" because the previous sentence refers to "some<i>one</i>" (singular, emphasis added).

Mane at 01:01, 22 September 2012

2012-09-22T01:01:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:01, 22 September 2012
Line 22:		Line 22:
	--[[User:Zzhk\|Zzhk]] ([[User talk:Zzhk\|talk]]) 11:09, 21 September 2012 (CDT)		--[[User:Zzhk\|Zzhk]] ([[User talk:Zzhk\|talk]]) 11:09, 21 September 2012 (CDT)

	The "which..." can only apply to office. If the sentence were in passive, it would apply to desk. A comma ensures the "which..." portion only applies to the last word before the comma. Generally, "which" requires a comma before it, and (correct) use of "which" without a comma generally indicates poor sentence construction.		The "which..." modifier can only apply to office. If the sentence were in passive, it would apply to desk. A comma ensures the "which..." portion only applies to the last word before the comma. Generally, "which" requires a comma before it, and (correct) use of "which" without a comma generally indicates poor sentence construction. It's really another flow issue because a passive sentence is more difficult to read.

	The term "current events" does not necessarily mean "news." It simply means the topic (loosely defined) everyone is discussing. I assumed that the relevant circles discussed the referenced event often, but recent would be correct if no one else is discussing the topic.		The term "current events" does not necessarily mean "news." It simply means the topic (loosely defined) everyone is discussing. I assumed that the relevant circles discussed the referenced event often, but recent would be correct if no one else is discussing the topic.
Line 34:		Line 34:
	I thought the use of contractions would be a good signal that the text is character thought, not narration. I can't differentiate narration from character thoughts with certainty. No offense, but sometimes the narration is colloquial enough that it presents a real line drawing problem (without the italics). Please "add" the contractions back if I removed them from character thought.		I thought the use of contractions would be a good signal that the text is character thought, not narration. I can't differentiate narration from character thoughts with certainty. No offense, but sometimes the narration is colloquial enough that it presents a real line drawing problem (without the italics). Please "add" the contractions back if I removed them from character thought.

	The context for that portion of text does not seem to match well with "despair." He is a little too active for "despair." Of course, it could just be a cultural barrier issue. I though frustration fit the context better.		The context for that portion of text does not seem to match well with "despair" or "hopelessness." He is a little too active for "despair." Despair usually deprives a person of motivation and, generally, emotion. Of course, it could just be a cultural barrier issue. I though frustration fit the context better.

	The expression "have confidence in..." can also mean something along the lines of "confided in," and the common usage is "confident in." I changed "confidence" to "faith" to eliminate any potential confusion. The last few might not be wrong; I simply changed them to the more common ways of expressing the same thing. As for "could not help xyz-ing," I have never seen that particular usage before (outside of fan translation). I know what it should mean, but the usage is awkward. The common usage is "she could not help but..." (Ancillary point: gerunds ruin the flow of the text because a more concise, active usage always exists.)		The expression "have confidence in..." can also mean something along the lines of "confided in," and the common usage is "confident in." I changed "confidence" to "faith" to eliminate any potential confusion. The last few might not be wrong; I simply changed them to the more common ways of expressing the same thing. As for "could not help xyz-ing," I have never seen that particular usage before (outside of fan translation). I know what it should mean, but the usage is awkward. The common usage is "she could not help but..." (Ancillary point: gerunds ruin the flow of the text because a more concise, active usage always exists.)

			The "fellows" seems to be there purely to give a sense of number (does the original text use a specifically plural form of "you?"), but it is unnecessary because "you" can be either singular or plural. We don't need to preserve the specifically plural "you" in the original text because we don't attempt to preserve the different kinds of "I" the text undoubted uses. In both instances, some meaning is lost. However, the gain in conciseness and readability, I think, is worth that loss.

	I like to eliminate passive sentence. Those tend to distance the actor from his actions; they might hinder the establishment of rapport between the reader and the character.		I like to eliminate passive sentence. Those tend to distance the actor from his actions; they might hinder the establishment of rapport between the reader and the character.

	Sometimes it's difficult to get out of the mindset I have in my day job, so I would really appreciate any feedback you can give.		Sometimes it's difficult to get out of the mindset I have in my day job, so I would really appreciate any feedback you can give.

			On some of my edits:
			1. "Just" v. "completely" slacking off: the issue is whether the web surfing activities are incidental to his intelligence gathering. If they are, then "completely" would be wrong because that word implies that Amakasu devotes a portion of his working day to non-work activities. "Just" is more vague on this distinction, and that is desirable because the subsequent dialogue does not clearly settle the matter.
			2. "Sure enough" usually goes with events that occur in the present; it conveys movement in time. Erica's observation that Amakasu is observant must occur <i>before</i> she smiles. Otherwise, the smile would not be expressed. Similar, Ena's use of "sure enough" would be incorrect because she does not mean to convey that some event is occurring.
			3. I interpreted "love communism" as "[verb] [noun]," so it was unintelligible to me. It was obvious to read words in their plausible meaning before making up new words. The hyphen really helps to clear out any confusion.
			4. "But the first requirement is that they accept Erica's superior position." "They" should be "she" because the previous sentence refers to "some<i>one</i>" (singular, emphasis added).

			--[[User:Mane\|Mane]] ([[User talk:Mane\|talk]]) 20:01, 21 September 2012 (CDT)

	===Despair vs Frustration===		===Despair vs Frustration===
Line 46:		Line 56:

	Committing suicide out of despair doesn't seem very farfetched. He sees no hope in his own future. Of course, feel free to suggest a better alternative that covers the meaning of hopelessness. --[[User:Zzhk\|Zzhk]] ([[User talk:Zzhk\|talk]]) 19:06, 21 September 2012 (CDT)		Committing suicide out of despair doesn't seem very farfetched. He sees no hope in his own future. Of course, feel free to suggest a better alternative that covers the meaning of hopelessness. --[[User:Zzhk\|Zzhk]] ([[User talk:Zzhk\|talk]]) 19:06, 21 September 2012 (CDT)


			I see your point. Active is not the right word. It should be "affective" (yes, "a" not "e"). People who commit suicide in despair usually do not involve other people (why bother?). It just bothers me that the context implies both frustration and hopelessness...may be "frustratingly hopeless?"
			--[[User:Mane\|Mane]] ([[User talk:Mane\|talk]]) 20:01, 21 September 2012 (CDT)

Zzhk at 00:06, 22 September 2012

2012-09-22T00:06:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:06, 22 September 2012
Line 41:		Line 41:

	Sometimes it's difficult to get out of the mindset I have in my day job, so I would really appreciate any feedback you can give.		Sometimes it's difficult to get out of the mindset I have in my day job, so I would really appreciate any feedback you can give.

			===Despair vs Frustration===
			He is a little too active for "despair."

			Committing suicide out of despair doesn't seem very farfetched. He sees no hope in his own future. Of course, feel free to suggest a better alternative that covers the meaning of hopelessness. --[[User:Zzhk\|Zzhk]] ([[User talk:Zzhk\|talk]]) 19:06, 21 September 2012 (CDT)

Mane at 23:14, 21 September 2012

2012-09-21T23:14:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:14, 21 September 2012
Line 22:		Line 22:
	--[[User:Zzhk\|Zzhk]] ([[User talk:Zzhk\|talk]]) 11:09, 21 September 2012 (CDT)		--[[User:Zzhk\|Zzhk]] ([[User talk:Zzhk\|talk]]) 11:09, 21 September 2012 (CDT)

	The "which..." can only apply to office. If the sentence were in passive, it would apply to desk. A comma ensures the "which..." portion only applies to the last word before the comma. Generally, "which" requires a comma before it, and (correct) use of "which" without a comma generally ~~indicate~~ poor sentence construction.		The "which..." can only apply to office. If the sentence were in passive, it would apply to desk. A comma ensures the "which..." portion only applies to the last word before the comma. Generally, "which" requires a comma before it, and (correct) use of "which" without a comma generally indicates poor sentence construction.

	The term "current events" does not necessarily mean "news." It simply means the topic (loosely defined) everyone is discussing. I assumed that the relevant circles discussed the event often, but recent would be correct if no one else is discussing the topic.		The term "current events" does not necessarily mean "news." It simply means the topic (loosely defined) everyone is discussing. I assumed that the relevant circles discussed the referenced event often, but recent would be correct if no one else is discussing the topic.

	I do not consider Wikipedia a substitute for a dictionary. I prefer <dictionary.com>, but I will defer to you on this.		Regarding teaware, I do not consider Wikipedia a substitute for a dictionary. I prefer <dictionary.com>, but I will defer to you on this.

	I use nation in its ordinary meaning, that is: "nation state," which can include ethnic minorities.		I use nation in its ordinary meaning, that is: "nation state," which can include ethnic minorities.
Line 32:		Line 32:
	Dialogue text need not be grammatically perfect. These changes were just efforts to improve the flow of the text. Most of those are far from perfect, since the first is wrong even when using "to." The correct usage is "upon." The second sentence would be wrong regardless of the preposition because "trash" is an amorphous term that needs a unit (bags, cans, etc.) for accounting purposes. She seems to be saying "I can easily handle three hundred of you, because you're nothing more than trash in my eyes." I didn't want to make that kind of change; I didn't know what the original text said.		Dialogue text need not be grammatically perfect. These changes were just efforts to improve the flow of the text. Most of those are far from perfect, since the first is wrong even when using "to." The correct usage is "upon." The second sentence would be wrong regardless of the preposition because "trash" is an amorphous term that needs a unit (bags, cans, etc.) for accounting purposes. She seems to be saying "I can easily handle three hundred of you, because you're nothing more than trash in my eyes." I didn't want to make that kind of change; I didn't know what the original text said.

	~~The~~ use of contractions would be a good signal that the text is character thought, not narration. I can't ~~tell~~ narration from character thoughts with certainty. No offense, but sometimes the narration is colloquial enough that it presents a real line drawing problem (without the italics). Please "add" the contractions back if I removed them from character thought.		I thought the use of contractions would be a good signal that the text is character thought, not narration. I can't differentiate narration from character thoughts with certainty. No offense, but sometimes the narration is colloquial enough that it presents a real line drawing problem (without the italics). Please "add" the contractions back if I removed them from character thought.

	The context that portion of text does not seem to match well with "despair." He is a little too active for "despair." Of course, it could just be a cultural barrier issue. I though frustration fit the context better.		The context for that portion of text does not seem to match well with "despair." He is a little too active for "despair." Of course, it could just be a cultural barrier issue. I though frustration fit the context better.

	The expression "have confidence in..." can also mean something along the lines of "confided in," and the ~~normal~~ usage is "confident in." I changed "confidence" to "faith" to eliminate any potential confusion. The last few might not be wrong; I simply changed them to the more common ways of expressing the same thing. As for "could not help xyz-ing," I have never seen that particular usage before (outside of fan translation). I know what it should mean, but the usage is awkward. The common usage is "she could not help but..." (Ancillary point: gerunds ruin the flow of the text because a more concise usage always exists.)		The expression "have confidence in..." can also mean something along the lines of "confided in," and the common usage is "confident in." I changed "confidence" to "faith" to eliminate any potential confusion. The last few might not be wrong; I simply changed them to the more common ways of expressing the same thing. As for "could not help xyz-ing," I have never seen that particular usage before (outside of fan translation). I know what it should mean, but the usage is awkward. The common usage is "she could not help but..." (Ancillary point: gerunds ruin the flow of the text because a more concise, active usage always exists.)

	I ~~also~~ like to eliminate passive sentence. ~~Since those~~ tend distance the actor from his actions, they might hinder the establishment of rapport between the reader and the character.		I like to eliminate passive sentence. Those tend to distance the actor from his actions; they might hinder the establishment of rapport between the reader and the character.

	Sometimes it's difficult to get out of the mindset I have in my day job, so I would really appreciate any feedback you can give.		Sometimes it's difficult to get out of the mindset I have in my day job, so I would really appreciate any feedback you can give.

Mane at 23:09, 21 September 2012

2012-09-21T23:09:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:09, 21 September 2012
Line 21:		Line 21:

	--[[User:Zzhk\|Zzhk]] ([[User talk:Zzhk\|talk]]) 11:09, 21 September 2012 (CDT)		--[[User:Zzhk\|Zzhk]] ([[User talk:Zzhk\|talk]]) 11:09, 21 September 2012 (CDT)

			The "which..." can only apply to office. If the sentence were in passive, it would apply to desk. A comma ensures the "which..." portion only applies to the last word before the comma. Generally, "which" requires a comma before it, and (correct) use of "which" without a comma generally indicate poor sentence construction.

			The term "current events" does not necessarily mean "news." It simply means the topic (loosely defined) everyone is discussing. I assumed that the relevant circles discussed the event often, but recent would be correct if no one else is discussing the topic.

			I do not consider Wikipedia a substitute for a dictionary. I prefer <dictionary.com>, but I will defer to you on this.

			I use nation in its ordinary meaning, that is: "nation state," which can include ethnic minorities.

			Dialogue text need not be grammatically perfect. These changes were just efforts to improve the flow of the text. Most of those are far from perfect, since the first is wrong even when using "to." The correct usage is "upon." The second sentence would be wrong regardless of the preposition because "trash" is an amorphous term that needs a unit (bags, cans, etc.) for accounting purposes. She seems to be saying "I can easily handle three hundred of you, because you're nothing more than trash in my eyes." I didn't want to make that kind of change; I didn't know what the original text said.

			The use of contractions would be a good signal that the text is character thought, not narration. I can't tell narration from character thoughts with certainty. No offense, but sometimes the narration is colloquial enough that it presents a real line drawing problem (without the italics). Please "add" the contractions back if I removed them from character thought.

			The context that portion of text does not seem to match well with "despair." He is a little too active for "despair." Of course, it could just be a cultural barrier issue. I though frustration fit the context better.

			The expression "have confidence in..." can also mean something along the lines of "confided in," and the normal usage is "confident in." I changed "confidence" to "faith" to eliminate any potential confusion. The last few might not be wrong; I simply changed them to the more common ways of expressing the same thing. As for "could not help xyz-ing," I have never seen that particular usage before (outside of fan translation). I know what it should mean, but the usage is awkward. The common usage is "she could not help but..." (Ancillary point: gerunds ruin the flow of the text because a more concise usage always exists.)

			I also like to eliminate passive sentence. Since those tend distance the actor from his actions, they might hinder the establishment of rapport between the reader and the character.

			Sometimes it's difficult to get out of the mindset I have in my day job, so I would really appreciate any feedback you can give.

Zzhk: edits

2012-09-21T16:09:44Z

edits

New page

==Mane's Edits==
"A number of desks lined the office, which occupied an entire floor of a residential and commercial building.": I don't see the point in changing the subject of the sentence to "desks" from "office", which also creates ambiguity since your "which" after the comma can be interpreted to apply to "desks" instead of "office."

"Piled high on the desks were all sorts of computers and documents, all kinds of books (including manga) as well as an assorted array of snacks and junk food, health equipment such as pressure point massage tools, and toys targeted towards infants and older children.": clearly the writer is setting up 3 distinct categories.

"Speaking of current events": come on, you read Volume 4 which took place in the former half of summer. It is now the fall term. Events that already happened a month or two ago isn't "current" but "recent."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaware Teaware]. If you don't accept wiki's choice of spelling it as one word, then use two.

Nations are homogeneous groups of people, so saying "people and nation" is redundant.

"To this fellow Kusanagi, divine justice must be served": note that "serve" is the verb here. Serving justice ON someone? Wrong preposition.

"Trash like you, I can easily handle three hundred.": note that the verb is "handle." Handle AGAINST? Wrong preposition.

I don't see any point in eliminating contractions from lines in the narration which are clearly interjected thoughts.

Despair is not the same as frustration.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against expressions like "having confidence in someone", "fellow", or constructions like "that's right, ...", "you know, XXX, ...", or "could not help" + gerund?

--[[User:Zzhk|Zzhk]] ([[User talk:Zzhk|talk]]) 11:09, 21 September 2012 (CDT)