Editing Talk:Mahouka Koukou no Rettousei:Volume 8 Chapter 15

I think it's not Bezobrakov but Bezoblakov. Since he is russian and latter could be translated as "without clouds" or "not cloudy". Not real russian surname though.

Is Liu Yunde alive? The sentence "Then were you aware that the 'Heavenly General' was present with and perished alongside the fleet?" indicates that he's dead but further reading hints that he's alive and is active.--[[User:Vu.P|Vu.P]] ([[User talk:Vu.P|talk]]) 07:04, 2 April 2013 (CDT)
:Don't know where you are getting that vibe from, the whole '13 apostles to 12 apostles' makes it clear he's dead.--[[User:Drowzycow|Drowzycow]] ([[User talk:Drowzycow|talk]]) 07:19, 2 April 2013 (CDT)

:From what I can tell, he is dead. The only line I can think of hinting that he is alive is the one saying "as we are aware of Lie Yunde's movements" or whatever, but that just means they were aware he was active, which is why they know he is dead. As for the russian name, I would be more inclined to think it to be Bezobrazov. ベゾブラゾフ = Bezoburazofu, and there technically is some Russian person named Aleksandr Bezaobrazov according to wiki.  Someone who knows Russian probably should attempt to put his or her thoughts into this, though :P --[[User:EnigmaticAxiom|EnigmaticAxiom]] ([[User talk:EnigmaticAxiom|talk]]) 07:20, 2013 April 2 (CDT)
::Yes, Bezobrazov seems to be correct. Previous post about surname was also me. I don't have raws so I couldn't have checked original. [[Special:Contributions/212.45.0.203|212.45.0.203]] 13:22, 2 April 2013 (CDT)

Don't know where I got kov from. Fixed.
Also, bloody Yanks and their heretic spellings >_> [[User:Seitsuki|Seit]] ([[User talk:Seitsuki|talk]]) 17:07, 2 April 2013 (CDT)

"I can’t even say it’s unlikely I wouldn’t be killed by him" - that line doesn't make sense given the context. --[[Special:Contributions/192.5.215.218|192.5.215.218]] 02:38, 4 April 2013 (CDT)

(Agreement with the above; perhaps 'I can’t even say it's unlikely I'd be killed by him'.  For a different (and more minor) suggestion, perhaps change "However for the events...Okinawa', can only be" to "However, for the events...Okinawa' can only be".)
<br>|<br>
((For my main reaction:  So much squeeing!  The Yotsuba specialties are the sorts of power I've longed for in the past.  The declaration of (and reason for) Miyuki's future position is also wonderful and laugh-inducing.  It's slightly concerning that the decision hasn't been cemented as fact for the rest of the family, since unexpected things can happen--but since we readers care more about the siblings than about the rest of the family, that maybe doesn't need to overly bother us.)) -[[User:Multipartite|Multipartite]] ([[User talk:Multipartite|talk]]) 04:32, 4 April 2013 (CDT)


Low-sigificance comment on the page History's annotation 'Its [sic] a flashback so the use of present tense is not wrong.':  As this is 2095AD November 6th, it is (as far as I'm aware) not a flashback, but rather 'the present'.  If the impression is based on the line 'It had been one week since[...]', note that, after mentioning what happened one week ago, it goes back to what is happening now (contrasting the two occasions).  (*flees from ambiguous tense choice matters which, being ambiguous, in any case do not set off painful mental sirens*) -[[User:Multipartite|Multipartite]] ([[User talk:Multipartite|talk]]) 08:25, 4 April 2013 (CDT)
:Multipartite is correct here. The 'flashback', uses present tense due to Miyuki's first person perspective. But the current scene occurs in the 'present' and narrative tense would sound better.--[[User:Drowzycow|Drowzycow]] ([[User talk:Drowzycow|talk]]) 14:24, 4 April 2013 (CDT)
::(*happiness*) -[[User:Multipartite|Multipartite]] ([[User talk:Multipartite|talk]]) 16:11, 4 April 2013 (CDT)


'"Had served/is continuing" is a mismatch etc.':  Is it?  *curiosity*  "I have in the past served [X]'s predecessor, and am continuing with my service in serving [X]"...  (Another History annotation comment, directed at the other one of the two.) (Again, not claiming correctness of either side, but pointing out (/any) possible flaws noticed in the reasoning of both/either.) -[[User:Multipartite|Multipartite]] ([[User talk:Multipartite|talk]]) 08:36, 4 April 2013 (CDT)


Note that in your example you used "I ''have'' served", not "I ''had'' served". "Had" implies two levels of past - an earlier time, and then something had happened before that time. "Had served" sounds like past tense narration here - he "was serving" Maya (already past for the "current" time being talked about), and "had served" her predecessor (further in the past). In present tense narration, I'd expect this to be "He formerly served the previous head, and is now continuing his service under Maya". [[Special:Contributions/80.223.220.209|80.223.220.209]] 09:41, 4 April 2013 (CDT)


After contemplation, another possible example thought of:  "I had wanted you to {take over the company once I retired}/{marry person Y instead of person Z}...  but no matter.".  For another example, "If I'd wanted you to do that I'd have said so", which becomes "If I had wanted you to do that I would have said so"  ('If I would have wanted' or 'If I have wanted' doomful.).  In both cases, I only see one level of past, but no mental dissonance.  *enjoys the discussion*
<br>|<br>
(Hmm, to make sure there's no rule about wanting:  'If I'd walked under there I would have died!'.  I note I can't immediate rule out the possibility of a rule about two-part usage, though.  Ah, but it may be possible to deal with even that with the line of reasoning that the 'before the previous head was replaced' is {implied by}/{assumable from} context.) (*wonders curiously what actually happened to the previous head...  and what tends to be the end of Yotsuba heads in general, which could be Miyuki-relevant later...*)  -[[User:Multipartite|Multipartite]] ([[User talk:Multipartite|talk]]) 13:02, 4 April 2013 (CDT)


Hypothetical "if X happened" is a different case. "I don't own that hause; if I did, I would paint it black" - this is in present tense, and the "did" does not mean past. And similarly in past tense "I didn't own that house; if I had, I would have painted it black". [[Special:Contributions/80.223.220.209|80.223.220.209]] 14:45, 4 April 2013 (CDT)


Ahh, the 'would(/ have)' pairing...  I see.  *nods*  Assuming 'had' as in ownership to be wholly inapplicable, only the "I had wanted[...]"/"I had hoped[...]" example above remains (unless there is in fact a separate rule for wanting).  *close to being convinced, searches for detailed information on the word*
<br>|<br>
Pluperfect (wiktionary, from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/had ):  'Pertaining to action completed before or at the same time as another', no mention of double pastness.  There's also an example of two hads used, but I'm guessing that to have an operation or to have a drink is, like having (owning) a dog, not directly comparable to 'having done something'.  Formal definitions can be found which lack a mention of double pastness, but can one be found which supports it?
<br>|<br>
--("I had just stepped over the threshold, when BOOM!  A djinn appeared in front of me!", but perhaps that could be seen as 'A djinn appeared (past 1) right after I'd gone in (past 2)'...  Ah, but then one could argue a "He serves Maya.  [He started serving her when she became the leader, and ]he'd served the previous leader before[ that].".  Complete omission might be inapplicable though, hmm.  *curiosity*)  -[[User:Multipartite|Multipartite]] ([[User talk:Multipartite|talk]]) 16:11, 4 April 2013 (CDT)
<br>|<br>
Edit:  A better phrasing is perhaps "He'd served the previous leader[ back when the leader was the previous leader, as directly indicated by the 'previous'], and now serves Maya.".  "I'd been a tiny child back then...  ahh, good times." -[[User:Multipartite|Multipartite]] ([[User talk:Multipartite|talk]]) 16:18, 4 April 2013 (CDT)


I think the relevant wiktionary page is http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pluperfect_tense, which says "before another past event". [[Special:Contributions/80.223.220.209|80.223.220.209]] 16:33, 4 April 2013 (CDT)
<br>|<br>
Guys, please indent your sentences if it is a reply to a post above. Also timestamps --[[Special:Contributions/192.5.215.218|192.5.215.218]] 20:50, 4 April 2013 (CDT)

I find this explanation for the distributed ray of light confusing. Can someone please explain why it being distributed means it can't be reflected or the likes? [[User:IndexArcanum|IndexArcanum]] ([[User talk:IndexArcanum|talk]])
:I read it as unstoppable lasers, defined by Maya choosing where point A and point B go to. --[[User:Drowzycow|Drowzycow]] ([[User talk:Drowzycow|talk]]) 06:14, 5 April 2013 (CDT)
It is more along the lines of she is telling the information body that the light that passed through it is of a extremely high density and there for a hole is opened in it due to the difference in the density of the two. example if u pour an oil and water together the oil will separate itself form the water and rise to the surface due to its greater density. using this example the light that was condensed form the 
surroundings has a density that is too great to reflected by anything that can not reflect 100% of all the light that hits it there for when it passes through an inanimate or living object a hole is left {think of flesh like a sheet of paper and the light as a pencil that was thrown or dropped at the paper while it is stretched completely to its limits}.

About Soviet Strategic Class magician. His name shoud be in Russian Игорь Адреевич Безобразов and in English Igor Andre'''e'''vich Bezobrazov. --[[User:Glenrok|Glenrok]] ([[User talk:Glenrok|talk]]) 07:46, 5 April 2013 (CDT)