Talk:Rakuin no Monshou:Volume1 Chapter4 - Revision history

Dohma at 15:21, 22 February 2014

2014-02-22T15:21:53Z

Cthaeh: forgot one

2013-09-26T01:04:43Z

forgot one

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:04, 26 September 2013
Line 181:		Line 181:
	And when Bateaux was bound to find out that they’d disappeared, the small opportunity that they’d made would be ruined. Then, the people left behind would stand no chance.		And when Bateaux was bound to find out that they’d disappeared, the small opportunity that they’d made would be ruined. Then, the people left behind would stand no chance.
	:*The first sentence didn't quite make sense to me. A simple issue is "when Bateaux was bound to find out"; "when" and "was bound to" don't go together well there. But also the current wording seems to me like it is saying that Bateaux was likely to find out they disappeared before they managed to leave the castle. That may be the correct interpretation, but I was expecting it to mean that the people left behind would have no chance once it was found out they disappeared, though that would be redundant with the second sentence if that were the case.		:*The first sentence didn't quite make sense to me. A simple issue is "when Bateaux was bound to find out"; "when" and "was bound to" don't go together well there. But also the current wording seems to me like it is saying that Bateaux was likely to find out they disappeared before they managed to leave the castle. That may be the correct interpretation, but I was expecting it to mean that the people left behind would have no chance once it was found out they disappeared, though that would be redundant with the second sentence if that were the case.

			“... Just what’s the fun in having hundreds, thousands, ten thousands of people, each with their own opinions contain of people, kill each other!?”
			:*I wasn't sure what " their own opinions contain of people" meant.

	<hr>		<hr>

Cthaeh: suggested sentences for revision

2013-09-20T01:20:23Z

suggested sentences for revision

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:20, 20 September 2013
Line 136:		Line 136:
	*My eyes deceive me. Since he had been using 'was born in', you were correct. Sorry. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]]		*My eyes deceive me. Since he had been using 'was born in', you were correct. Sorry. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]]
	* I looked it up. It is either 'born to' a family or 'born into' a family, not born in. 'born into' is more commonly used so let's go with that. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma\|talk]]) 06:19, 16 July 2013 (CDT)		* I looked it up. It is either 'born to' a family or 'born into' a family, not born in. 'born into' is more commonly used so let's go with that. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma\|talk]]) 06:19, 16 July 2013 (CDT)


			<hr>

			Here are the sentences that I'd suggest revisions for. Also, some of the edits I made to the text did involve some rewording. Let me know if that level of editing should be posted on the talk page, rather than made directly, in the future. Thanks for the translations --[[User:Cthaeh\|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh\|talk]]) 20:20, 19 September 2013 (CDT)


			Although, for a leader, his slight wisdom was partly insufficient, he was much better compared to the other group of corrupted nobles.
			:*awkward phrasing for the first half. I suggest something like ''"Although his skills as a leader were somewhat lacking, he was much better..."''

			Even if he’d come over so abruptly, when he thought of the Mephius’ nobleman Fedom’s sudden visit, why had he bought Orba without asking for consent?
			:*The phrasing is a little awkward. My best attempt at an alternative would be ""When he thought of the Mephius’ nobleman Fedom’s sudden visit, he wondered why he had bought Orba without asking for consent even if the visit had been abrupt."''

			When he becomes the prince’s body double, he’ll have the opportunity to come in contact with leading figures, other than Fedom of course.
			:*Suggested alternative ''"As the prince’s body double, he would have the opportunity to come in contact with leading figures, other than Fedom of course."''

			She hoped the prince would fall madly in love with her. However, if he had some sort of love affair with a distant girl, well, she didn’t know whether or not it would be the result. Anyway, it wouldn’t be a problem if she kept smiling.
			:*I didn't quite grasp the meaning of the middle sentence, but I have trouble describing why that is or proposing a proper alternative. The sentence I would expect based on surrounding context might be "However, she didn't know whether or not it would work out that way if he already had a love affair with another girl." That sentence has some obvious differences from the current translation, so I expect it doesn't capture all of the intended meeting, but it's my best attempt at trying to confer why the original felt off to me. Since I can't describe it properly, don't worry about this one if nothing appears wrong to you.

			Because ‘Prince Gil’ didn’t quite seem to go onto the main subject, even though everybody grew more uncomfortable, Shique finally broke the ice.
			:*"even though" doesn't seem to fit to me. I would propose ''"... main subject, everybody grew more uncomfortable until Shique finally broke the ice."''

			“But is it all right to be so open about this with us? Isn’t this a state secret?” // “It isn’t,” Orba quickly said.
			:*Should "It isn't" be "It is" instead?

			“If only it were so. Whether it’s a true or not, the person will always be an existence coming from Tarkas’s mouth. ..."
			:*I wasn't sure about the meaning of the last part. I thought it could be something like "right now Tarkas's word is the only thing proving that person's existence." Or maybe "Tarkas is sticking to his story about the existence of such a person."

			There was no question that those people, who had been planning to help the princess get back home, would'''(n’t)''' try to get her killed.
			:*I actually already changed this because I was pretty sure about it, but I added the bolded '''n't''' to change it from "would" to "wouldn't".

			Then the atmosphere was again about to become strained, as it suddenly grew noisy near the room’s entrance.
			:*I wasn't sure what the reason for the atmosphere becoming strained was (because the noise at the room's entrance, or the conversation in the room). The two alternatives I would propose for each meaning are "It suddenly grew noisy near the room's entrance and the atmosphere became strained again" '''or''' "The atmosphere was about to become strained again, but it suddenly grew noisy near the room's entrance".

			After getting his first military feat at the age of thirteen ...
			:*"getting his first military feat" didn't sound natural to me. I would propose "getting his first military commendation" if that fits the intending meaning. If not I'm not sure what it would be.

			However, although the rebellion had been very effective in its initial stages, it also contributed to the internal discord among the families after their struggle for power, and one month passed where they were being suppressed one after another.
			:*I'm actually not sure if anything needs to be fixed, but I was expecting it to be "discord among the families that were struggling for power". That has a different meaning that the original wording so I'm not sure that it should be changed. It was just that something about the original phrasing didn't seem quite right to me, though this is another case where I have trouble figuring out why.

			they succeeded in making an opening between the match for but a short amount of time.
			:*I think that's a typo where "match" should be "watch". But also "an opening between the watch" still seems a little awkward to me. I think "an opening in the watch" is a little better... maybe.

			And when Bateaux was bound to find out that they’d disappeared, the small opportunity that they’d made would be ruined. Then, the people left behind would stand no chance.
			:*The first sentence didn't quite make sense to me. A simple issue is "when Bateaux was bound to find out"; "when" and "was bound to" don't go together well there. But also the current wording seems to me like it is saying that Bateaux was likely to find out they disappeared before they managed to leave the castle. That may be the correct interpretation, but I was expecting it to mean that the people left behind would have no chance once it was found out they disappeared, though that would be redundant with the second sentence if that were the case.

			<hr>

Dohma at 11:19, 16 July 2013

2013-07-16T11:19:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:19, 16 July 2013
Line 135:		Line 135:
	*You aren't wrong to say that "was born into" is definitely more proper in emphasizing status and family. However, you also have to consider the context of the situation. Japanese writing in general promotes the use of passive style, as opposed to English assertive writings. Dohma for the most part chooses to continue to adhere to the passive writing style even through his translations. The subtle differences between "born in" and "born into" can be considered as subtle as the difference in meanings between assertive and passive writing. Essentially, there is none, except for the use of emphasis. Do you want to emphasize the action, or the subject? Dohma uses "had been born in" in his original translation. This is literally correct. "Had been born into" is grammatically incorrect. The correct term should be "''was'' born into", which, if you had changed the sentence to that, would have made it sound awkward. Use of 'into' reflects a change in state that should only occur once. 'Had been' is past progressive, and implies continual changes in state. Edit reverted. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 4:03, 9 July 2013 (CDT)		*You aren't wrong to say that "was born into" is definitely more proper in emphasizing status and family. However, you also have to consider the context of the situation. Japanese writing in general promotes the use of passive style, as opposed to English assertive writings. Dohma for the most part chooses to continue to adhere to the passive writing style even through his translations. The subtle differences between "born in" and "born into" can be considered as subtle as the difference in meanings between assertive and passive writing. Essentially, there is none, except for the use of emphasis. Do you want to emphasize the action, or the subject? Dohma uses "had been born in" in his original translation. This is literally correct. "Had been born into" is grammatically incorrect. The correct term should be "''was'' born into", which, if you had changed the sentence to that, would have made it sound awkward. Use of 'into' reflects a change in state that should only occur once. 'Had been' is past progressive, and implies continual changes in state. Edit reverted. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 4:03, 9 July 2013 (CDT)
	*My eyes deceive me. Since he had been using 'was born in', you were correct. Sorry. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]]		*My eyes deceive me. Since he had been using 'was born in', you were correct. Sorry. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]]
			* I looked it up. It is either 'born to' a family or 'born into' a family, not born in. 'born into' is more commonly used so let's go with that. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma\|talk]]) 06:19, 16 July 2013 (CDT)

Detalz at 03:38, 9 July 2013

2013-07-09T03:38:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:38, 9 July 2013
Line 134:		Line 134:
	One edit I just made was to change "born in" to "born into". I think that "born into" is more appropriate when talking about the status or family one was born into. I would use "born in" when talking about the physical location of the birth. Though, I don't know if that usage is one of the subtler and harder-to-know differences between BE and AE. (As a side note, I did have some other edits, but misplaced the file with them a week ago. If I can't find that file in a few weeks then I may re-read the chapter. Though, it's not that my few edits matter or would change all that much.). --[[User:Cthaeh\|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh\|talk]]) 21:40, 8 July 2013 (CDT)		One edit I just made was to change "born in" to "born into". I think that "born into" is more appropriate when talking about the status or family one was born into. I would use "born in" when talking about the physical location of the birth. Though, I don't know if that usage is one of the subtler and harder-to-know differences between BE and AE. (As a side note, I did have some other edits, but misplaced the file with them a week ago. If I can't find that file in a few weeks then I may re-read the chapter. Though, it's not that my few edits matter or would change all that much.). --[[User:Cthaeh\|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh\|talk]]) 21:40, 8 July 2013 (CDT)
	*You aren't wrong to say that "was born into" is definitely more proper in emphasizing status and family. However, you also have to consider the context of the situation. Japanese writing in general promotes the use of passive style, as opposed to English assertive writings. Dohma for the most part chooses to continue to adhere to the passive writing style even through his translations. The subtle differences between "born in" and "born into" can be considered as subtle as the difference in meanings between assertive and passive writing. Essentially, there is none, except for the use of emphasis. Do you want to emphasize the action, or the subject? Dohma uses "had been born in" in his original translation. This is literally correct. "Had been born into" is grammatically incorrect. The correct term should be "''was'' born into", which, if you had changed the sentence to that, would have made it sound awkward. Use of 'into' reflects a change in state that should only occur once. 'Had been' is past progressive, and implies continual changes in state. Edit reverted. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 4:03, 9 July 2013 (CDT)		*You aren't wrong to say that "was born into" is definitely more proper in emphasizing status and family. However, you also have to consider the context of the situation. Japanese writing in general promotes the use of passive style, as opposed to English assertive writings. Dohma for the most part chooses to continue to adhere to the passive writing style even through his translations. The subtle differences between "born in" and "born into" can be considered as subtle as the difference in meanings between assertive and passive writing. Essentially, there is none, except for the use of emphasis. Do you want to emphasize the action, or the subject? Dohma uses "had been born in" in his original translation. This is literally correct. "Had been born into" is grammatically incorrect. The correct term should be "''was'' born into", which, if you had changed the sentence to that, would have made it sound awkward. Use of 'into' reflects a change in state that should only occur once. 'Had been' is past progressive, and implies continual changes in state. Edit reverted. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 4:03, 9 July 2013 (CDT)
			*My eyes deceive me. Since he had been using 'was born in', you were correct. Sorry. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]]

Detalz at 03:05, 9 July 2013

2013-07-09T03:05:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:05, 9 July 2013
Line 133:		Line 133:

	One edit I just made was to change "born in" to "born into". I think that "born into" is more appropriate when talking about the status or family one was born into. I would use "born in" when talking about the physical location of the birth. Though, I don't know if that usage is one of the subtler and harder-to-know differences between BE and AE. (As a side note, I did have some other edits, but misplaced the file with them a week ago. If I can't find that file in a few weeks then I may re-read the chapter. Though, it's not that my few edits matter or would change all that much.). --[[User:Cthaeh\|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh\|talk]]) 21:40, 8 July 2013 (CDT)		One edit I just made was to change "born in" to "born into". I think that "born into" is more appropriate when talking about the status or family one was born into. I would use "born in" when talking about the physical location of the birth. Though, I don't know if that usage is one of the subtler and harder-to-know differences between BE and AE. (As a side note, I did have some other edits, but misplaced the file with them a week ago. If I can't find that file in a few weeks then I may re-read the chapter. Though, it's not that my few edits matter or would change all that much.). --[[User:Cthaeh\|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh\|talk]]) 21:40, 8 July 2013 (CDT)
			*You aren't wrong to say that "was born into" is definitely more proper in emphasizing status and family. However, you also have to consider the context of the situation. Japanese writing in general promotes the use of passive style, as opposed to English assertive writings. Dohma for the most part chooses to continue to adhere to the passive writing style even through his translations. The subtle differences between "born in" and "born into" can be considered as subtle as the difference in meanings between assertive and passive writing. Essentially, there is none, except for the use of emphasis. Do you want to emphasize the action, or the subject? Dohma uses "had been born in" in his original translation. This is literally correct. "Had been born into" is grammatically incorrect. The correct term should be "''was'' born into", which, if you had changed the sentence to that, would have made it sound awkward. Use of 'into' reflects a change in state that should only occur once. 'Had been' is past progressive, and implies continual changes in state. Edit reverted. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 4:03, 9 July 2013 (CDT)

Cthaeh: reason for "born into" edit

2013-07-09T02:40:02Z

reason for "born into" edit

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:40, 9 July 2013
Line 130:		Line 130:

	* I meant to say "when she used her wits together with her grandfather". Changed it.--[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma\|talk]]) 08:50, 1 July 2013 (CDT)		* I meant to say "when she used her wits together with her grandfather". Changed it.--[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma\|talk]]) 08:50, 1 July 2013 (CDT)


			One edit I just made was to change "born in" to "born into". I think that "born into" is more appropriate when talking about the status or family one was born into. I would use "born in" when talking about the physical location of the birth. Though, I don't know if that usage is one of the subtler and harder-to-know differences between BE and AE. (As a side note, I did have some other edits, but misplaced the file with them a week ago. If I can't find that file in a few weeks then I may re-read the chapter. Though, it's not that my few edits matter or would change all that much.). --[[User:Cthaeh\|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh\|talk]]) 21:40, 8 July 2013 (CDT)

Dohma at 13:50, 1 July 2013

2013-07-01T13:50:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:50, 1 July 2013
Line 128:		Line 128:

	Just read your latest addition. You had left the following sentence incomplete at the end. ''But Vileena’s – arguing with a rebel at the young age of nine, and still not giving up hope when she her wits together with her grandfather.'' You probably meant: "But Vileena's - arguing with a rebel at the young age of nine, and still not giving hope, she had together with her grandfather demonstrated her wits." , or at least that's what I got from the raws. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 06:46, 30 June 2013 (CDT)		Just read your latest addition. You had left the following sentence incomplete at the end. ''But Vileena’s – arguing with a rebel at the young age of nine, and still not giving up hope when she her wits together with her grandfather.'' You probably meant: "But Vileena's - arguing with a rebel at the young age of nine, and still not giving hope, she had together with her grandfather demonstrated her wits." , or at least that's what I got from the raws. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 06:46, 30 June 2013 (CDT)

			* I meant to say "when she used her wits together with her grandfather". Changed it.--[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma\|talk]]) 08:50, 1 July 2013 (CDT)

Detalz at 05:48, 30 June 2013

2013-06-30T05:48:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:48, 30 June 2013
Line 125:		Line 125:

	*I think your revision from 'injured his body' to 'his health deteriorated' was appropriate, because there was no context to assume what had injured him. The raw text goes as follows. "And that following winter, his health had deteriorated, and he became bedridden. ''And then the event five years later dealt the final blow.''" So in terms of the order of events, he got sickly -> suffered the wound five years ago as mentioned in Chapter 4, it matches. So I stand by the author discrepancy. Well, I just think it's fun finding these little facts. Regarding your revision of mansion, no opposition here. Since the author uses 離宮 to refer to both the estate and 'palace' I think it's more appropriate to separate it to two different terms. And palace fits more appropriate to the setting than mansion would. But seriously...what kind of an idiot would attack the former king's palace of all places, just because he wanted it?... --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 19:16, 28 June 2013 (CDT)		*I think your revision from 'injured his body' to 'his health deteriorated' was appropriate, because there was no context to assume what had injured him. The raw text goes as follows. "And that following winter, his health had deteriorated, and he became bedridden. ''And then the event five years later dealt the final blow.''" So in terms of the order of events, he got sickly -> suffered the wound five years ago as mentioned in Chapter 4, it matches. So I stand by the author discrepancy. Well, I just think it's fun finding these little facts. Regarding your revision of mansion, no opposition here. Since the author uses 離宮 to refer to both the estate and 'palace' I think it's more appropriate to separate it to two different terms. And palace fits more appropriate to the setting than mansion would. But seriously...what kind of an idiot would attack the former king's palace of all places, just because he wanted it?... --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 19:16, 28 June 2013 (CDT)


			Just read your latest addition. You had left the following sentence incomplete at the end. ''But Vileena’s – arguing with a rebel at the young age of nine, and still not giving up hope when she her wits together with her grandfather.'' You probably meant: "But Vileena's - arguing with a rebel at the young age of nine, and still not giving hope, she had together with her grandfather demonstrated her wits." , or at least that's what I got from the raws. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 06:46, 30 June 2013 (CDT)

Detalz at 17:46, 28 June 2013

2013-06-28T17:46:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:46, 28 June 2013
Line 124:		Line 124:
	* Scratch the above. I just read a similar discussion I had with [[User:Kiydon\|Kiydon]] in the prologue [[Talk:Rakuin_no_Monshou:Volume1_Prologue\|talk page]]. There, I first translated 身体を壊し as 'injured his body' literally, but I later revised it to 'his health deteriorated'. I also translated ある冬以来 as 'ever since the winter' but it could very well mean 'ever since that (certain) winter'. Thinking back, the original translation was probably correct, as it's a sorta foreboding to the explanation in chapter four. Thus, Jeorg had been bedridden ever since the battlewound 'that winter'. Although in chapter 4 it never mentions that the Bateaux-thing happened in wintertime, this seems like a more logical explanation than that the author made a mistake. I also intend to change mansion into either 'palace' or 'estate' later in the prologue, but I'll leave this up for discussion now. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma\|talk]]) 09:39, 28 June 2013 (CDT)		* Scratch the above. I just read a similar discussion I had with [[User:Kiydon\|Kiydon]] in the prologue [[Talk:Rakuin_no_Monshou:Volume1_Prologue\|talk page]]. There, I first translated 身体を壊し as 'injured his body' literally, but I later revised it to 'his health deteriorated'. I also translated ある冬以来 as 'ever since the winter' but it could very well mean 'ever since that (certain) winter'. Thinking back, the original translation was probably correct, as it's a sorta foreboding to the explanation in chapter four. Thus, Jeorg had been bedridden ever since the battlewound 'that winter'. Although in chapter 4 it never mentions that the Bateaux-thing happened in wintertime, this seems like a more logical explanation than that the author made a mistake. I also intend to change mansion into either 'palace' or 'estate' later in the prologue, but I'll leave this up for discussion now. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma\|talk]]) 09:39, 28 June 2013 (CDT)

	*I think your revision from 'injured his body' to 'his health deteriorated' was appropriate, because there was no context to assume what had injured him. The raw text goes as follows. "And that following winter, his health had deteriorated, and he became bedridden. ''And then the event five years later dealt the final blow.''" So in terms of the order of events, he got sickly -> suffered the wound five years ago as mentioned in Chapter 4, it matches. So I stand by the author discrepancy. Well, I just think it's fun finding these little facts. Regarding your revision of mansion, no opposition here. Since the author uses 離宮 to refer to both the estate and 'palace' I think it's more appropriate to separate it to two different terms. And palace fits more appropriate to the setting than mansion would. But seriously...what kind of an idiot would attack the former king's palace of all places, just because he wanted it?... --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 07:16, 28 June 2013 (CDT)		*I think your revision from 'injured his body' to 'his health deteriorated' was appropriate, because there was no context to assume what had injured him. The raw text goes as follows. "And that following winter, his health had deteriorated, and he became bedridden. ''And then the event five years later dealt the final blow.''" So in terms of the order of events, he got sickly -> suffered the wound five years ago as mentioned in Chapter 4, it matches. So I stand by the author discrepancy. Well, I just think it's fun finding these little facts. Regarding your revision of mansion, no opposition here. Since the author uses 離宮 to refer to both the estate and 'palace' I think it's more appropriate to separate it to two different terms. And palace fits more appropriate to the setting than mansion would. But seriously...what kind of an idiot would attack the former king's palace of all places, just because he wanted it?... --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 19:16, 28 June 2013 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:19, 16 July 2013
Line 135:		Line 135:
	*You aren't wrong to say that "was born into" is definitely more proper in emphasizing status and family. However, you also have to consider the context of the situation. Japanese writing in general promotes the use of passive style, as opposed to English assertive writings. Dohma for the most part chooses to continue to adhere to the passive writing style even through his translations. The subtle differences between "born in" and "born into" can be considered as subtle as the difference in meanings between assertive and passive writing. Essentially, there is none, except for the use of emphasis. Do you want to emphasize the action, or the subject? Dohma uses "had been born in" in his original translation. This is literally correct. "Had been born into" is grammatically incorrect. The correct term should be "''was'' born into", which, if you had changed the sentence to that, would have made it sound awkward. Use of 'into' reflects a change in state that should only occur once. 'Had been' is past progressive, and implies continual changes in state. Edit reverted. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 4:03, 9 July 2013 (CDT)		*You aren't wrong to say that "was born into" is definitely more proper in emphasizing status and family. However, you also have to consider the context of the situation. Japanese writing in general promotes the use of passive style, as opposed to English assertive writings. Dohma for the most part chooses to continue to adhere to the passive writing style even through his translations. The subtle differences between "born in" and "born into" can be considered as subtle as the difference in meanings between assertive and passive writing. Essentially, there is none, except for the use of emphasis. Do you want to emphasize the action, or the subject? Dohma uses "had been born in" in his original translation. This is literally correct. "Had been born into" is grammatically incorrect. The correct term should be "''was'' born into", which, if you had changed the sentence to that, would have made it sound awkward. Use of 'into' reflects a change in state that should only occur once. 'Had been' is past progressive, and implies continual changes in state. Edit reverted. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 4:03, 9 July 2013 (CDT)
	*My eyes deceive me. Since he had been using 'was born in', you were correct. Sorry. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]]		*My eyes deceive me. Since he had been using 'was born in', you were correct. Sorry. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]]
			* I looked it up. It is either 'born to' a family or 'born into' a family, not born in. 'born into' is more commonly used so let's go with that. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma\|talk]]) 06:19, 16 July 2013 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:38, 9 July 2013
Line 134:		Line 134:
	One edit I just made was to change "born in" to "born into". I think that "born into" is more appropriate when talking about the status or family one was born into. I would use "born in" when talking about the physical location of the birth. Though, I don't know if that usage is one of the subtler and harder-to-know differences between BE and AE. (As a side note, I did have some other edits, but misplaced the file with them a week ago. If I can't find that file in a few weeks then I may re-read the chapter. Though, it's not that my few edits matter or would change all that much.). --[[User:Cthaeh\|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh\|talk]]) 21:40, 8 July 2013 (CDT)		One edit I just made was to change "born in" to "born into". I think that "born into" is more appropriate when talking about the status or family one was born into. I would use "born in" when talking about the physical location of the birth. Though, I don't know if that usage is one of the subtler and harder-to-know differences between BE and AE. (As a side note, I did have some other edits, but misplaced the file with them a week ago. If I can't find that file in a few weeks then I may re-read the chapter. Though, it's not that my few edits matter or would change all that much.). --[[User:Cthaeh\|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh\|talk]]) 21:40, 8 July 2013 (CDT)
	*You aren't wrong to say that "was born into" is definitely more proper in emphasizing status and family. However, you also have to consider the context of the situation. Japanese writing in general promotes the use of passive style, as opposed to English assertive writings. Dohma for the most part chooses to continue to adhere to the passive writing style even through his translations. The subtle differences between "born in" and "born into" can be considered as subtle as the difference in meanings between assertive and passive writing. Essentially, there is none, except for the use of emphasis. Do you want to emphasize the action, or the subject? Dohma uses "had been born in" in his original translation. This is literally correct. "Had been born into" is grammatically incorrect. The correct term should be "''was'' born into", which, if you had changed the sentence to that, would have made it sound awkward. Use of 'into' reflects a change in state that should only occur once. 'Had been' is past progressive, and implies continual changes in state. Edit reverted. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 4:03, 9 July 2013 (CDT)		*You aren't wrong to say that "was born into" is definitely more proper in emphasizing status and family. However, you also have to consider the context of the situation. Japanese writing in general promotes the use of passive style, as opposed to English assertive writings. Dohma for the most part chooses to continue to adhere to the passive writing style even through his translations. The subtle differences between "born in" and "born into" can be considered as subtle as the difference in meanings between assertive and passive writing. Essentially, there is none, except for the use of emphasis. Do you want to emphasize the action, or the subject? Dohma uses "had been born in" in his original translation. This is literally correct. "Had been born into" is grammatically incorrect. The correct term should be "''was'' born into", which, if you had changed the sentence to that, would have made it sound awkward. Use of 'into' reflects a change in state that should only occur once. 'Had been' is past progressive, and implies continual changes in state. Edit reverted. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]] 4:03, 9 July 2013 (CDT)
			*My eyes deceive me. Since he had been using 'was born in', you were correct. Sorry. --[[User:Detalz\|Detalz]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:21, 22 February 2014
Line 141:		Line 141:

	Here are the sentences that I'd suggest revisions for. Also, some of the edits I made to the text did involve some rewording. Let me know if that level of editing should be posted on the talk page, rather than made directly, in the future. Thanks for the translations --[[User:Cthaeh\|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh\|talk]]) 20:20, 19 September 2013 (CDT)		Here are the sentences that I'd suggest revisions for. Also, some of the edits I made to the text did involve some rewording. Let me know if that level of editing should be posted on the talk page, rather than made directly, in the future. Thanks for the translations --[[User:Cthaeh\|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh\|talk]]) 20:20, 19 September 2013 (CDT)
			*Thank you for checking things as usual, and sorry for replying about half a year later. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]]


	Although, for a leader, his slight wisdom was partly insufficient, he was much better compared to the other group of corrupted nobles.		Although, for a leader, his slight wisdom was partly insufficient, he was much better compared to the other group of corrupted nobles.
	:*awkward phrasing for the first half. I suggest something like ''"Although his skills as a leader were somewhat lacking, he was much better..."''		:*awkward phrasing for the first half. I suggest something like ''"Although his skills as a leader were somewhat lacking, he was much better..."''
			::*Changed it. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]]

	Even if he’d come over so abruptly, when he thought of the Mephius’ nobleman Fedom’s sudden visit, why had he bought Orba without asking for consent?		Even if he’d come over so abruptly, when he thought of the Mephius’ nobleman Fedom’s sudden visit, why had he bought Orba without asking for consent?
	:*The phrasing is a little awkward. My best attempt at an alternative would be ""When he thought of the Mephius’ nobleman Fedom’s sudden visit, he wondered why he had bought Orba without asking for consent even if the visit had been abrupt."''		:*The phrasing is a little awkward. My best attempt at an alternative would be ""When he thought of the Mephius’ nobleman Fedom’s sudden visit, he wondered why he had bought Orba without asking for consent even if the visit had been abrupt."''
			::*Changed it. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]]

	When he becomes the prince’s body double, he’ll have the opportunity to come in contact with leading figures, other than Fedom of course.		When he becomes the prince’s body double, he’ll have the opportunity to come in contact with leading figures, other than Fedom of course.
	:*Suggested alternative ''"As the prince’s body double, he would have the opportunity to come in contact with leading figures, other than Fedom of course."''		:*Suggested alternative ''"As the prince’s body double, he would have the opportunity to come in contact with leading figures, other than Fedom of course."''
			::*Changed it. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]]

	She hoped the prince would fall madly in love with her. However, if he had some sort of love affair with a distant girl, well, she didn’t know whether or not it would be the result. Anyway, it wouldn’t be a problem if she kept smiling.		She hoped the prince would fall madly in love with her. However, if he had some sort of love affair with a distant girl, well, she didn’t know whether or not it would be the result. Anyway, it wouldn’t be a problem if she kept smiling.
	:*I didn't quite grasp the meaning of the middle sentence, but I have trouble describing why that is or proposing a proper alternative. The sentence I would expect based on surrounding context might be "However, she didn't know whether or not it would work out that way if he already had a love affair with another girl." That sentence has some obvious differences from the current translation, so I expect it doesn't capture all of the intended meeting, but it's my best attempt at trying to confer why the original felt off to me. Since I can't describe it properly, don't worry about this one if nothing appears wrong to you.		:*I didn't quite grasp the meaning of the middle sentence, but I have trouble describing why that is or proposing a proper alternative. The sentence I would expect based on surrounding context might be "However, she didn't know whether or not it would work out that way if he already had a love affair with another girl." That sentence has some obvious differences from the current translation, so I expect it doesn't capture all of the intended meeting, but it's my best attempt at trying to confer why the original felt off to me. Since I can't describe it properly, don't worry about this one if nothing appears wrong to you.
			::* You got the meaning of the sentence right, I just didn't word it that good. Changed it to: "It would be best if the prince fell madly in love with her. However, she didn't know whether it would work out that way if he already had some love affair with another girl." --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]]

	Because ‘Prince Gil’ didn’t quite seem to go onto the main subject, even though everybody grew more uncomfortable, Shique finally broke the ice.		Because ‘Prince Gil’ didn’t quite seem to go onto the main subject, even though everybody grew more uncomfortable, Shique finally broke the ice.
	:*"even though" doesn't seem to fit to me. I would propose ''"... main subject, everybody grew more uncomfortable until Shique finally broke the ice."''		:*"even though" doesn't seem to fit to me. I would propose ''"... main subject, everybody grew more uncomfortable until Shique finally broke the ice."''
			::* It kind of changes the meaning. Gil doesn't start despite the obvious discomfort of his guests. Changed it to: "‘Prince Gil’ didn’t quite seem to go onto the main subject, even though his guests grew more uncomfortable, so Shique finally broke the ice." --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]]

	“But is it all right to be so open about this with us? Isn’t this a state secret?” // “It isn’t,” Orba quickly said.		“But is it all right to be so open about this with us? Isn’t this a state secret?” // “It isn’t,” Orba quickly said.
	:*Should "It isn't" be "It is" instead?		:*Should "It isn't" be "It is" instead?
			::* Ah yes. But he's replying on 'is it alright to be so open with us?'. I'll change it to "It's 'not' all right." --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]]

	“If only it were so. Whether it’s a true or not, the person will always be an existence coming from Tarkas’s mouth. ..."		“If only it were so. Whether it’s a true or not, the person will always be an existence coming from Tarkas’s mouth. ..."
	:*I wasn't sure about the meaning of the last part. I thought it could be something like "right now Tarkas's word is the only thing proving that person's existence." Or maybe "Tarkas is sticking to his story about the existence of such a person."		:*I wasn't sure about the meaning of the last part. I thought it could be something like "right now Tarkas's word is the only thing proving that person's existence." Or maybe "Tarkas is sticking to his story about the existence of such a person."
			::* Changed it to "any mention of this ‘person’ is only coming from Tarkas’s mouth". --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]]

	There was no question that those people, who had been planning to help the princess get back home, would'''(n’t)''' try to get her killed.		There was no question that those people, who had been planning to help the princess get back home, would'''(n’t)''' try to get her killed.
	:*I actually already changed this because I was pretty sure about it, but I added the bolded '''n't''' to change it from "would" to "wouldn't".		:*I actually already changed this because I was pretty sure about it, but I added the bolded '''n't''' to change it from "would" to "wouldn't".
			::* You're right. Thanks. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]]

	Then the atmosphere was again about to become strained, as it suddenly grew noisy near the room’s entrance.		Then the atmosphere was again about to become strained, as it suddenly grew noisy near the room’s entrance.
	:*I wasn't sure what the reason for the atmosphere becoming strained was (because the noise at the room's entrance, or the conversation in the room). The two alternatives I would propose for each meaning are "It suddenly grew noisy near the room's entrance and the atmosphere became strained again" '''or''' "The atmosphere was about to become strained again, but it suddenly grew noisy near the room's entrance".		:*I wasn't sure what the reason for the atmosphere becoming strained was (because the noise at the room's entrance, or the conversation in the room). The two alternatives I would propose for each meaning are "It suddenly grew noisy near the room's entrance and the atmosphere became strained again" '''or''' "The atmosphere was about to become strained again, but it suddenly grew noisy near the room's entrance".
			::* It's the former. Changed it. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]]

	After getting his first military feat at the age of thirteen ...		After getting his first military feat at the age of thirteen ...
	:*"getting his first military feat" didn't sound natural to me. I would propose "getting his first military commendation" if that fits the intending meaning. If not I'm not sure what it would be.		:*"getting his first military feat" didn't sound natural to me. I would propose "getting his first military commendation" if that fits the intending meaning. If not I'm not sure what it would be.
			::* It's a very annoying Japanese word that appears a lot in this story, literally meaning 'distinguished (military) service' and I often try to come up with something to fit the context. I'll go y your proposal and use 'commendation' here. --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]]

	However, although the rebellion had been very effective in its initial stages, it also contributed to the internal discord among the families after their struggle for power, and one month passed where they were being suppressed one after another.		However, although the rebellion had been very effective in its initial stages, it also contributed to the internal discord among the families after their struggle for power, and one month passed where they were being suppressed one after another.
	:*I'm actually not sure if anything needs to be fixed, but I was expecting it to be "discord among the families that were struggling for power". That has a different meaning that the original wording so I'm not sure that it should be changed. It was just that something about the original phrasing didn't seem quite right to me, though this is another case where I have trouble figuring out why.		:*I'm actually not sure if anything needs to be fixed, but I was expecting it to be "discord among the families that were struggling for power". That has a different meaning that the original wording so I'm not sure that it should be changed. It was just that something about the original phrasing didn't seem quite right to me, though this is another case where I have trouble figuring out why.
			::* 'after their struggle' should be 'during their struggle' --[[User:Dohma\|Dohma]]

	they succeeded in making an opening between the match for but a short amount of time.		they succeeded in making an opening between the match for but a short amount of time.
	:*I think that's a typo where "match" should be "watch". But also "an opening between the watch" still seems a little awkward to me. I think "an opening in the watch" is a little better... maybe.		:*I think that's a typo where "match" should be "watch". But also "an opening between the watch" still seems a little awkward to me. I think "an opening in the watch" is a little better... maybe.
			::* Yup.

	And when Bateaux was bound to find out that they’d disappeared, the small opportunity that they’d made would be ruined. Then, the people left behind would stand no chance.		And when Bateaux was bound to find out that they’d disappeared, the small opportunity that they’d made would be ruined. Then, the people left behind would stand no chance.
	:*The first sentence didn't quite make sense to me. A simple issue is "when Bateaux was bound to find out"; "when" and "was bound to" don't go together well there. But also the current wording seems to me like it is saying that Bateaux was likely to find out they disappeared before they managed to leave the castle. That may be the correct interpretation, but I was expecting it to mean that the people left behind would have no chance once it was found out they disappeared, though that would be redundant with the second sentence if that were the case.		:*The first sentence didn't quite make sense to me. A simple issue is "when Bateaux was bound to find out"; "when" and "was bound to" don't go together well there. But also the current wording seems to me like it is saying that Bateaux was likely to find out they disappeared before they managed to leave the castle. That may be the correct interpretation, but I was expecting it to mean that the people left behind would have no chance once it was found out they disappeared, though that would be redundant with the second sentence if that were the case.
			::* It does say 'bound to find out'. But I made a mistake in 'small opportunity' - the 'opportunity' is the 'chance to slip in' or Bateaux's 'weak spot'. Changed the overall sentence.

	“... Just what’s the fun in having hundreds, thousands, ten thousands of people, each with their own opinions contain of people, kill each other!?”		“... Just what’s the fun in having hundreds, thousands, ten thousands of people, each with their own opinions contain of people, kill each other!?”
	:*I wasn't sure what " their own opinions contain of people" meant.		:*I wasn't sure what " their own opinions contain of people" meant.
			::* Just a typo on my part. Forgot to remove 'contain of people' when I remodeled the sentence. Also changed 'opinions' to 'feelings', which sounds better.

	<hr>		<hr>