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. --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. --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. --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). --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, it is correct grammatically. --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.

--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. --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. --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. --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. --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. --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. --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. --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. -Kiydon

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

In the most 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. --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! -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. --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. -Kiydon

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. - 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. --Dohma (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2013 (CDT)