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

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): --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 bloodthristy beast we have been looking down upon is this very same dragon!", or something of the sort.

"...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.

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.

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.

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. "

"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.

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.."

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

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.

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)