Editing Talk:Rakuin no Monshou:Volume1 Chapter1

Plain gladiators, after finally having raised around a pile, would be thrown before wild animals or dragons on their own, only to satisfy the sadistic tastes of their customers.
::-I don't know what "raised around a pile" means
::* It's supposed to be 'a pile of money', but that still doesn't make much sense. I've changed it.

As Orba continued eating his meal in his usual stooped behaviour, Gilliam pushed him in the back, who had.
::-the ending "who had" seem like the sentence is incomplete, or otherwise I think it's not needed
::* A leftover from editing, deleted it.

Orba, scrambled thoughts mulling in his head, didn’t acknowledge the sight of his brother, though.
::-I was confused by this line. The phrase "didn't acknowledge the sight of his brother" makes it sound like his brother appeared, but Orba didn't recognize him.
::* Orba called for his brother, but when the knight intervenes, he realizes (author uses the verb for acknowledge, though) that it isn't his brother who helped him. I've edited the sentence a bit, it should be less confusing now I hope.

The armoured youth had drawn his sword. It seemed like, when he understood the sword that should’ve pierced through Orba’s heart had somehow been repelled the to the side, he had felled that one soldier.
::-The sentence structure was confusing to me as to who each "he" referred to.  I assume "he understood" is the "armoured youth" , but "he had felled" is the Garberan knight. But to me, it makes it sound like both those "he"s are the same person; unless the "armoured youth"'s sword hit his comrade instead of Orba.
::* I agree it's a bit confusing, and it's because of the order in which it's told, also in the original. But I guess that works better in Japanese. Orba is about to be killed by the 'bad' soldier, but then there's a flash of light, blocking it. The ''other'' 'bad' soldier says "What are you doing?", and then the author explains what happened: the armored youth had felled the soldier who was about to kill Orba. I've attempted to make it less confusing.


Above are sentences that I had trouble understanding their meanings.  Maybe it's just me that doesn't understand, in which case just ignore them. I also made some slightly more liberal edits to the text.  If you'd prefer I don't edit the text to that extent, let me know and I won't in future chapters. Same for posting sentences that I find unclear (like above) on the talk page if they're to trivial to spend time on. And thanks for the translation, I'm really enjoying it. --[[User:Cthaeh|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh|talk]]) 20:48, 1 April 2013 (CDT)

: Thanks for the comments. And don't worry about posting sentences here. I actually appreciate it, because I often don't see it when sentences tend to be confusing while I'm translating. --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 04:12, 16 April 2013 (CDT)

Is the the "“Go, go!” " suppose to be the crowd cheering? I find it little awkward but this may just may be me here.
* Yes. They say いけ！, but it can also mean '(go) do it', as in '(go) kill him' or '(go) fight'. Maybe "Fight, fight!" sounds better here, it's not an exact translation but it does its work. --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 15:23, 24 April 2013 (CDT)
................................................................................................................................


Today was another success. Because the more virtuous people living in the city, to whom the admission fees were no more than about a child’s weekly allowance, were able to watch the games, over a thousand spectators were gathered. 

Today was another success since the more virtuous people living in the city, for whom the admission fees were no more than about a child’s weekly allowance, were able to watch the games, over a thousand spectators were gathered. 

*I connected these sentences since there was hanging subordinate clause. I also changed to whom - for whom. While I believe both are correct grammatical the other sounds more fluid to me.
:*I feel like the meaning of the sentence changed now, though. It's "Today was another success." and then a sentence explaining why it was a succes: "Over a thousand spectators were gathered", because "the more virtuous people living in the city were able to watch the games". I'd rather have the sentence order of the second sentence changed, but I'll wait for your reply before doing anything (I don't want to immediately repay you for your work by changing it again :P). --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 15:23, 24 April 2013 (CDT)

*Actually now I see your point about the sentence. The sentence should end at the word "success". Everything about the sentence is correct grammatical. The sentence structure does still make wary with Because in the front of sentence. I find it suitable to revert my first change. 

Suggestion
* What about changing "because" to "Due to the fact"


Sorry to dig up an older discussion, but I just wanted to point out that "Because" here is completely fine, as the sentence has a main clause, and the clause that "because" is part of is dependent on that main clause. Thus, it's fine. The notion that "because" cannot start a sentence is false, as long as the clause that "because" is part of is subordinate to another, independent clause. --[[User:Kiydon|Kiydon]]

:And I see I forgot to reply on the 'due to the fact' suggestion. Personally I like 'because', as 'due to the fact' has a bit of a formal feel, so I'll keep it that way.

:On another note, I also start a lot of sentences with 'and' (the author starts a lot of sentences with 'because' and 'and' which is perfectly fine in Japanese), but I'm not quite sure if this is grammatically correct in English or if it sounds a bit odd. This might be because it's grammatically ''incorrect'' to start a sentence with 'and' or 'but' in Dutch ('because' is fine though). Personally, I'm not bothered with a sentence starting with 'and' in English, but I'd like to have a native speaker's opinion.

:--[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 05:54, 16 May 2013 (CDT) 

:I don't really see a problem with starting a sentence with "and", given that its used as a stylistic device and used after an independent clause. I'm not completely sure on this point though, but I've seen a lot of authors, including very affluent ones, use it in that way. So I think its fine. --[[User:Kiydon|Kiydon]]

:I'm pretty sure it's grammatically incorrect to start sentences with "And". However, I think it's something that happens often enough in casual speech that it's not incredibly awkward reading it as a native speaker, particularly if it was in dialogue. I'm not entirely sure about starting sentences with "But". For some reason I feel like I wouldn't do that very often, but I don't think it is 'wrong.' Sigh, editing on bt makes me feel depressed at how little English I actually ''know'', as opposed to just relying on what ''feels'' right as a native speaker. --[[User:Cthaeh|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh|talk]]) 22:17, 16 May 2013 (CDT)
::update: After I wrote the above I did a quick google search. The top hits seems to suggest that starting sentences with either of them was grammatically correct, and that the idea it wasn't correct was merely a common misconception. So I'm downranking my confidence on the matter. --[[User:Cthaeh|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh|talk]]) 20:18, 17 May 2013 (CDT)

:I think that starting a sentence with "but" is fine though if you ask most English teachers, most of them wouldn't reccommend that. Of course, that's disregarding the author's style and whatnot. If we are to stick as close to the original text and styling, I believe it should be fine. Anyways, there are cases where English authors completely disregard grammar laws to establish a specfic voice. --[[User:Vu.P|Vu.P]] ([[User talk:Vu.P|talk]]) 12:31, 17 May 2013 (CDT)

:Grammatically speaking, starting a sentence with "but" is completely fine. The only reason that most English teachers wouldn't recommend doing that is because of the inherent need for the clause including "but" to be a dependent one. There must be an independent clause that the dependent clause connects to. Some students instead forget to include an independent clause, which is where most of the worries come from. If you were to ask any higher level professors, they actually would encourage you to develop your own style, rather than limiting it down to workable, easy solutions. And yes, then there are those authors who ignore some established rules, such as Ernest Hemingway (headache to read for me personally, but that may be my inner grammar/spelling demons acting up), which is generally accepted so long as its consistent. --[[User:Kiydon|Kiydon]]

:Also, as I said before, starting a sentence with "and" is completely fine grammatically. And yes I know that feeling, it really doesn't help though, unfortunately, since as you said, its based on daily, colloquial usages. --[[User:Kiydon|Kiydon]]

:I see. I'll try to be a bit discreet with starting sentences with "and" or "but" (I usually use however instead for the latter one), but I'm glad it isn't grammatically incorrect, because it seems to be part of the writer's style. Thanks. --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 07:30, 18 May 2013 (CDT)

.........................................................................................................................................

"It was only the heat of battle that left an everlasting taste, stood in the air, and kept whirling around the arena." I don't think that "stood in the air" is used correctly. 滞留 in 空気中に滞留し probably translates better into "lingering". Also, there is grammatically mistakes with the "and kept whirling around the arena" part, so overall, accounting for the change, "It was only the heat of battle that left an everlasting taste, standing in the air and whirling around the arena." would be a better way of stating the sentence. -[[User:Kiydon|Kiydon]]

.........................................................................................................................................

In the most [http://www.baka-tsuki.org/project/index.php?title=Rakuin_no_Monshou%3AVolume1_Chapter1&diff=253048&oldid=252421 recent two edits]: I think the original "beside" is more natural sounding. Similarly, I like the original "great speed" better; but for this one I think there is a little bit of meaning/connotation difference between the two, so that depends on the intended translation. The other edits seem to be mostly stylistic to me, but I wanted to bring up those two for review. --[[User:Cthaeh|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh|talk]]) 20:28, 21 May 2013 (CDT)

*I reverted the besides edit, somehow was thinking that it was a verb. Thanks for pointing that out. "Great speed" would work if there was only one object; there are two gladiators charging at each other. Also, some of the other edits involved tense, location, and some incorrect grammatical usages. Just slowly going through the chapter, not having much time lately; thanks for reviewing the edits again! -[[User:Kiydon|Kiydon]]

:*I interpreted "at great speed" to be referring to their crossing (singular), rather than the individuals themselves (plural). I would say it's similar to the example sentence "They clashed with great force."  There 'great force' is referring to the clash. Grammar is not my strong suit, so if you told me I was wrong to construct a sentence that way, I could believe you. But that's what I was thinking when I brought it up. --[[User:Cthaeh|Cthaeh]] ([[User talk:Cthaeh|talk]]) 21:12, 21 May 2013 (CDT)

::* I see what you mean. It would be correct to refer to the crossing with "great speed". I just checked the raw, and the "clash" or "crossing" was indeed what was referred here. I'll change it to "at a great speed", in order to fix the lack of an article in the original. -[[User:Kiydon|Kiydon]]


<hr>


These are possible errors I noticed in the translation, and covers the first half of the entire chapter(Part 1 and half of Part 2). If you would rather me post everything in one go, just leave a message either here or in my chat and I'll do so for Chapter 2 onwards. And I was thinking, after the onset of Chapter 5, main character comments/descriptions should be added. I think we have just about enough information to describe everyone, except possibly Vileena. I'll probably post them on the forum, and hope you would have a look at it (a week or two from now). Hope you don't mind all the sample sentences. I really suck at describing grammatical errors and such. And without further ado, here are the edits(the ones in italics are trivial):  --[[User:Detalz|Detalz]] ([[User talk:Detalz|talk]]) 09:30, 4 July 2013 (CDT)

'''Once, the great dragons that established our culture roamed on the earth’s surface, but they were just the same as the bloodthirsty beast we look down upon now.''' Raw: かつては地表を埋め尽くし、文化をも築いたであろう偉大なドラゴンたちも、いまや我々の見下ろすこの先では、血に飢えた、ただの獣も同然。
*I think your usage of but is a bit wrong in the sentence. Rather than to compare the former/current dragon, it feels more like he is announcing it. "The great dragons had once roamed the earth and established our culture. And the bloodthirsty beast we have been looking down upon is this very same dragon!", or something of the sort. 

:* You're right that he is sort of announcing the dragon - maybe that doesn't come across right in my original translation. However, he ''does'' make a comparison in this sentence. Also adding や to いま (いまや) makes the latter part ''contrast'' with what was earlier said, as in 'but now'. So, now, the dragons are nothing more than simple, bloodthirsty beasts - like the one standing before them. It's not much of a difference but I changed it to: "The great dragons once roamed the earth and have likely established our culture, but now they are no more than the bloodthirsty, simple beast we look down on now."
::*I think of いまや as an indicator of ''change''. While this change can be used as a point of comparison/contrast, it doesn't necessarily emphasize the difference, so much as it does that there is a change between two time periods. In english equivalents, it'd be something like: "I once thought reading books was pointless. Now I read books every day." It might be a subtle difference since ''but'' is often conjugated with ''now'', but it's there. If you want to emphasize the differences in the change instead of just indicating emphasizing that there a change has occurred, you'd have to add additional markers, "そしていまや", "...だが、いまや.." or "でもいまや". It's really is a minor change in terms of the sentence changes. But the meaning conveyed ends up really different with this minor change in this example, at least that's how it feels to me. --[[User:Detalz|Detalz]] ([[User talk:Detalz|talk]]) 18:38, 17 July 2013 (CDT)
:::* I agree with your 'but now' placing more emphasis than 'now', so I removed the 'but'. However, in your initial comment you said "Rather than to compare the former/current dragon, it feels more like he is announcing it", and I was actually reacting on that. I simply see いまや as a 'now' in contrast to the past, or what was previously said, not an emphasis. --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 09:25, 23 July 2013 (CDT)

'''"...as the orator stated, ‘a certain ''third daughter'' from a ruined country’"''' 
* You're jumping the gun here. 「とある亡国の王女」only refers to "a certain princess from a ruined country" Though they most likely were referring to Vileena, it's best to keep ambiguous things ambiguous.
:* You're correct. I probably read 三女 or something... I forgot [[User:EusthEnoptEron|EEE]] also mentioned this when he proofchecked.

'''It swung its long tail around, rocked the ground by stamping its feet, but the dragon still struggled, not able to shake off the gladiator, as it shook off a second and a third attack tearing through scales that were equal to an iron armour, and flesh and blood got splattered around''' 
*The wording in this sentence is a bit weird, since you tried to keep as many commas in place as possible. The use of 'shook off a second/third attack' is also misleading, when the dragon was actually shaking off Orba as he performed his attacks. Wouldn't it be better to partition it into a few sentences? Here's a sample: It swung its long tail around and rocked the ground by stamping its feet, but the dragon was not able to shake off the gladiator. A second strike. And on the third, as the dragon continued its attempt to shake off the gladiator,  its scales that were as tough as iron armour were torn through, and pieces of flesh and blood splattered about.

:* I split it up in two: "It swung its long tail around and rocked the ground by stamping its feet, but the dragon still struggled, not able to shake off the gladiator. It shook off a second strike. But the third tore through its scales, as tough as iron armour, and pieces of flesh and blood got splattered about." I don't think adding 'the dragon continued its attempt to shake off the gladiator' a second time is necessary though.

'''Orba, staring down the lurking darkness, ''' Raw:  "オルバは、低い位置にわだかまる闇をにらみ上げながら、"
*I'm not exactly sure what significance staring down the darkness holds. Is that there a symbolic meaning in there? He should be staring up ''in'' the lurking darkness.
:* I don't know why I used 'down' actually... 'lurking' may be a bit strange here, it could also mean 'coiling' - basically, he's surrounded by darkness. And he's staring up at (or into) it, probably because he's lying down. Changed it to: "Orba, staring up at the darkness surrounding him,"

'''One of the other slaves ordered to feed the dragons, she was directly touching the dragons’ scales. ''' Raw: "他の奴隷たちに竜の給餌を命じている'''一方で、彼女自身は'''竜たちの鱗に直接手を触れている。" 
*Doesn't the highlighted portion single her out? "Of the other slaves.....only she herself was directly touching the dragon's scales. "
:* You're correct. Changed it.

"'''Whether there were difficulties with Ran seeing his true face through her eyes, or listening with her voice,''' soon became the target of bets among the sword slaves short of entertainment." Raw: "口も開かなかった。オルバの素顔をその目で見るか、ランの声を耳にするのとではどちらが難しいか...." 
*I think the target of the bets are: Orba's face being seen with (Ran's) eyes, and Orba hearing (Ran's) voice with his own ears. Also, どちらが難しいか literally translates to "which might be harder," and in the case of betting, "which would happen first?"  I would say its not so much of a difficulty, but whether Ran will see Orba's true face first, or Orba will get to hear Ran's voice first that the sword slaves were betting on. 
:* Thanks for this! This sentence really puzzled me; I thought they were betting about what troubled the two of them or something, but didn't know 難しい was related the odds of something happening. Changed it to: "Whether they would see Orba face or hear Ran's voice first soon became the target of bets among the sword slaves short of entertainment."
::*Np, I've had my fair share of help by using your translations as a reference to helping me decipher some of the sentences I came across as well. If you ever need help with some translations in future content, feel free to ask. I couldn't help taking a little peek. I'm really looking forward to the content in Volume 2. 

'''Then, after being excused for a meal of bread and soup ''' Raw:"それから申し訳程度のパンとスープで食事を済ませー"  
*申し訳程度 here is not used to mean excuse himself, but used to express a '''bare minimal''' quantity. "And then he finished a meal with bare minimal bread and soup.."
:* You're correct, I checked the dictionary. 申し訳程度 literally means 'sorry amount'. Changed it to 'sorry amount of bread and soup'.

''The next match was a cavalry battle.''
*Cavalry usually denotes a unit of men on horseback. For the duel, you might want to consider jousting. Or if you don't like that, just say the next match was on horseback
:* Changed it to 'mounted battle'. 

''And then there’s another fight'' ---> And then there would be another fight. 
*The sentence is awkward, since Orba has been describing in the past tense, and then you jump to present with "And then there's." He didn't mean there would be another fight in a literal sense, but more of figurative. 
:* Changed it. Thanks for checking this! --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 05:55, 16 July 2013 (CDT)

<hr>

I changed Shaga Mines to Tsaga Mines as I mistakenly read ツァーガ 'Tsaga' as シャーガ 'Shaga'. --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 12:04, 16 July 2013 (CDT)
*Haha, I made the same mistake when reading over it. Somehow, Shaga just sounded better to me than Tsaga, so I guess I never paid it much attention. --[[User:Detalz|Detalz]] ([[User talk:Detalz|talk]]) 18:38, 4 July 2013 (CDT)

<hr>

Here's the second part of edits for Chapter 1. Same format as the first half. Also, check my comment on いまや, since we seem to have slightly differing opinions in its meaning. --[[User:Detalz|Detalz]] ([[User talk:Detalz|talk]]) 05:24, 22 July 2013 (CDT)


A chunk of untranslated text was missing right before "You know, aniki." Raw:長剣ひと振りで蛮人が王になれた時代などはるか昔の時代。生まれ落ちた時点でオルバは泥水を畷るような生き方を定められているのであり、未来に多くを望むことなど、死者を生き返らせることよりよほど困難なのが現実だった。

*I took the liberty of translating it and added it to the page. Feel free to change it. "Imagining a time where longsword-wielding barbarians were once king, like in the olden days, where Orba was born in an environment similar to the red-light district and forced to adhere to its way of life, a future leaving much to be desired, where the great difficulties in bringing back the dead served as reality."

:* Thanks for pointing it out. Also: 畷る > 啜る - but I make the same kind of mistakes, they really look alike. I changed it to this:
::: He longed for the olden days, like the age where longsword-wielding barbarians were once kings. But the truth was, from the moment he was born, it was decided Orba would live his life sipping muddy waters, and if he wanted to do more in the future, it would be be much more difficult than bringing the dead back to life.


'''"Kain looked uninterested but stood on the tips of his toes."''' Raw: "カインがつまらなさそうに背伸びしたが、..."
*に is used here to connect つまらなさ and 伸びした together. Coupled with そう the sentence should mean "He seemed about to stetch his arms out in boredom."
:* Changed it.

'''"...the one named Shique, nestled into his back, and Orba wildly shook him off with his hand"''' Raw: オルバは乱暴に手で振り払った。 
*Except in the case of 乱暴にされた, 乱暴 usually denotes actions that are considered rude to the speaker. 'Wildy shook him off' might be an exaggeration. You could consider ''shoving off'', as a rude gesture that can be used to shake others off.
:* It ''does'' sound exaggerated, doesn't it. It's not like he's flailing his arms or anything. Still, I can't find any other entries than 乱暴 as 'violent' or something similar in my dictionaries. Also 振り払った already means 'shake off/push off', so the added adjective means Orba isn't very kind in pushing Shique away. I changed it to 'roughly'. --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 09:25, 23 July 2013 (CDT)

'''"Although I think it may practically be better for leading types......"''' Raw: "実際、指導者向きかもしれんが、かと思えば、"
*"You might be a suitable leader if not for your tendencies to..."
:* I don't see where you get the word 'tendency' from, unless if it's from '向き', which means 'suitable/better suited' in this context. But the sentence ''is'' a bit awkward. Change it to:
::: "Although I think you're actually better suited as a leader, if not for that quick temper of yours. You like books [...]"

'''Who is it that you fight? The other sword-slaves, yourself, or do you even have a purpose'''
*おまえが戦っているのは誰だ? is a shortened version of おまえが戦っているのは誰（のため）だ?、ため being implied.　"Who are you fighting for? The other sword slaves, yourself, or do you have some other type of objective/goal?"
:* I initially assumed Gowen accused Orba from fighting someone (being rebellous), and thus Orba's sullen reply. I ''do'' like your version better, though, and it makes more sense. So I changed it. --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 09:25, 23 July 2013 (CDT)

'''His blood was always screaming in the dark.'''  Raw: 血はいつも暗くざわめいていた. 
*暗いis modified into 暗くto become an adverb. Unfortunately, I can't think of the proper adverb to describe it. Closest I can get to is: His blood stirred in angst.  
:* A verb will also modify an adjective this way, as in 暗くなる 'it grows dark', where 'dark' is the adverb. 暗く can be further translated to either 'dark', 'darkly', or 'in darkness'. In this case I wanted to use the meaning of 'dark', or else the author wouldn't have specifically used this. Probably also because it's happening at night, so it's close to a pun. --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 09:25, 23 July 2013 (CDT)

“'''They, too, will think our aspects are hopeless.''' Like the king who’s surrounded by luxuries I wouldn’t have the money for within a lifetime, and eating his stomach full with delicious food every night. He sometimes takes a large army on a campaign, or gets shocked by betrayal, but every day he’s alive. '''I’ll never be able to.''' Neither the king nor the nobles, can even imagine what’s inside our dreams. Those people… '''Yes, take this night for example, they don’t even seem to be looking up at the same moon as I.'''”
*おれたちの基準で考えても無駄だよ。--> "They don't offer any sympathy on our living conditions" or "They don't offer a single thought on our living conditions"
:'''そんな生活なんておれには想像できない。'''できっこない。--> Bolded text was missing in translation.
:''they don't even seem to be looking up at the same moon as I'' --> They don't even consider themselves to be looking at the same moon as I (am).  [The ''am'' is there is make the sentence sound more childish. It's weird for a child to be speaking without it.]
:''Like the king'' --> Even the king
:''eating'' --> stuffing
:* Made the changes based on your comments.

'''"...burying his head in his arms and holding it with his hand."''' Raw: 両の手で抱えた膝に、頭を埋めながらおるは言った。
*burying his head between his arm-wrapped knees
:* Changed it.

'''"...sold clothes of her native people and towels she made by hand at the City of Apta once every month."''' Raw: 毎月一回アプターの都に売りにいく民族衣装の柄を利用した手拭いをこさえて 
*"...sold hand-made native clothing at the city of Apta once every month." 手拭いmeans hand-made. No usage of towel here.
:* Well I only get 手拭い as meaning towel.[http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/手拭い]  The furigana also say てぬぐい. But my translation isn't all that correct either, it doesn't say 'made by hand' or 'handmade' anywhere, but that she 'made' them. 利用した手拭い actually means '(things) used as towels' but I omitted 利用した because it only made the sentence hard to understand. Changed it to: 'sold native clothing and towels she made'. --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 09:25, 23 July 2013 (CDT)

'''"it was probably for his brother"''' Raw: 兄そのものであっただろう 
*"It was probably his brother." (Could you tell me how you got the 'for' in the sentence?)
:* Sentence: "If there was only one hope his mother worked for within her nearly colourless life, it was probably (for) his brother." It's a grammatical error of mine, I translated it like: "If there's one '''thing''' his mother worked for, it was for his brother." instead of "If there's one '''hope''' his mother worked for, it was his brother." --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 09:25, 23 July 2013 (CDT)

'''"...and Orba got into trouble secretly trying to mount one."''' Raw: オルバがこっそり跨ろうとしたら馬が大暴れして大変な目に遭ったこと、
*"...and Orba got into trouble secretly trying to mount one '''and caused the horse to go berserk.'''"
:* Added it.

'''"It was more than enough.That’s right, Orba, he responded to his own inner voice."''' Raw: もう充分だった。*'''そうだろう、オルバ'''* (Wakiten)。彼は内なる声に自ら応えた。 
*I think these two sentences belong in the same line. "Enough was enough. Isn't that right, Orba?" And due to language differences, 'enough is enough' should be italicized.
:* I like 'enough is enough', but I don't think he's 'thinking' that part, purely based on そうだろう being accented in the raw, and as I read the text, it is then that I realise they're Orba's thoughts. Also もう充分だった is in the past tense, whereas そうだろう, again, breaks that order The way I see it, 'enough was enough' and that's when Orba spurs himself on into action. That's why I only placed that part in italics, and made it part of his thoughts, while the first part is still narration. --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 09:25, 23 July 2013 (CDT)

I'll do the rest later --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 09:25, 23 July 2013 (CDT)


''Some go back out into this corrupted world, but there are some people who are content being a sword-slave for the rest of their life, because they can’t live without committing yet another crime'' -->  "Some go back out into this corrupted world, because they can’t live without committing yet another crime, but there are some people who are content being a sword-slave for the rest of their life,.."  (the 'because' statement was in the wrong order)

''It was a naturally formed valley in Mephius where the river dried out, but there was a poor village, after all not even the name was written down on maps, where Orba had grown up.'' ->
It was a naturally formed valley in Mephius where the river had dried out, and in these barren lands lay a poor village, whose name was not even written down on any maps; this was where Orba had grown up. 

''was the same thing she always said'' --> ''she would always say''

''was an everyday occurrence in Mephius'' --> was a common occurrence in Mephius   

''got Orba fully absorbed into them'' --> Orba got fully absorbed in them

''Shut up'' --> ''Shut it'',  a friendlier version that Orba seemingly uses.

''But when it came to his house'' --> And when it arrived at his house. 

''And this was by setting a trap.'' --> And this was how they set their trap.

''couldn't this be anything but a present'' --> could this be anything but a present

<hr>

Sorry, didn't notice the inline comments. I think you're good on most of them. You could consider Tarkas Gladiator Troupe as an alternative name. Also, regarding the "nail hitting him on the head," Consider "The nail hitting the head, Orba turned away." or usage of "Hitting home-run," "Hitting base," "Hit bulls-eye" "Right on the mark" as possible alternatives.  --[[User:Detalz|Detalz]] ([[User talk:Detalz|Detalz]]) 15:43 July 24, 2013

==Sections==

Do you mind if I redo the sections layouts ( those parts 1, 2, 3 ) ? I think more parts can be filled and the parts can be re-altered. - [[User:Rukiabankai|Rukiabankai]] ([[User talk:Rukiabankai|talk]]) 09:11, 18 June 2013 (CDT)

* I'm not really sure what you mean. Do you want to change the layout? Please elaborate. --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 13:59, 18 June 2013 (CDT)


=Question from EN to RU translator=

Hello everybody! I'm translating RnM from English to Russian, and have some questions regarding the meaning of some lines in english text. Would you be so kind to specify it for me?

"Of the guys here, even those that can read and write letters, I doubt they’ve ever read more than a hundred in their life." Is "a handred" regarding to the "Letters" or the "Books".

Thanks in advance and there might be some more questions in the future.--[[User:Glenrok|Glenrok]] ([[User talk:Glenrok|talk]]) 03:59, 3 October 2013 (CDT)

* It refers to the letters. The actual word used is 'characters' which can mean a letter from the Western, Arabic, Egyptian, Chinese... any script. I used the translation 'letters' to avoid confusion, but I assume the writing system in this fictional world is actually similar to the Japanese/Chinese where a single character is a word, but I have no way to confirm this. Good luck with your translations. --[[User:Dohma|Dohma]] ([[User talk:Dohma|talk]]) 13:18, 3 October 2013 (CDT)
Latest revision		Your text
Line 38:		Line 38:


−	Sorry to dig up an older discussion, but I just wanted to point out that "Because" here is completely fine, as the sentence has a main clause, and the clause that "because" is part of is dependent on that main clause. Thus, it's fine. The notion that "because" cannot start a sentence is false; as long as the clause that "because" is part of is subordinate to another, independent clause~~, it is correct grammatically~~. --[[User:Kiydon\|Kiydon]]	+	Sorry to dig up an older discussion, but I just wanted to point out that "Because" here is completely fine, as the sentence has a main clause, and the clause that "because" is part of is dependent on that main clause. Thus, it's fine. The notion that "because" cannot start a sentence is false, as long as the clause that "because" is part of is subordinate to another, independent clause. --[[User:Kiydon\|Kiydon]]

	:And I see I forgot to reply on the 'due to the fact' suggestion. Personally I like 'because', as 'due to the fact' has a bit of a formal feel, so I'll keep it that way.		:And I see I forgot to reply on the 'due to the fact' suggestion. Personally I like 'because', as 'due to the fact' has a bit of a formal feel, so I'll keep it that way.