Talk:Maou na Ore to Fushihime no Yubiwa:Volume 1 Chapter 3

Thoughts on the ten grams part: If the verb form is 'tara' (for instance 'harattara'), it's unfortunately ambiguous regarding whether it's past or non-past (if I understand correctly). If something counts as a clue, however, it might be that the measurement is in grams (appropriate for a powder bought and later mixed into a liquid) rather than mililitres (appropriate for a liquid to be drunk). Also, the phrase 'Shiru ka!' seems to go well with hardening one's heart to another's (unasked-for) suffering, rather than turning down an economic offer. Lastly, the uprooted mandragora scream is particularly appropriate for an extremely expensive thing going to waste, rather than just a wail of 'once again couldn't get him to eat it (but can keep trying)'. These factors lead me to the impression that she's trying (and fails) to move his heart with the price she paid to get it, rather than trying to bargain with him. I could definitely be wrong, however. May I ask the original wording present, and/or whether there was a part of it that definitively indicates the meaning? (By the way, thank you very much for the translations! *greatly enjoying such scenes*) -Multipartite (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2013 (CDT)

(Incidentally, on the 'for': In some circumstances you could say 'I'll give you 30,000 yen each.', with '[for those things in front of you that you're selling]' unspoken and understood, and likewise 'For each ten grams, I'll give you 30,000 yen' or 'For items of that quality, I'll give you 30,000 yen each', but unfortunately '30,000 yen each ten grams' is not a valid grammatical structure. ...hmm, '10g 30,000 yen' might actually work, but only as a market sign rather than in spoken conversation. -Multipartite (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2013 (CDT))

Original wording: "Sore, jyuu GURAMU de san man en mo shitandayo? Nakenashi chokin wo hataite kattandayo?" (それ、十グラムで三万円をしたんだよ? なけなし貯金をはたいて買ったんだよ?). While I was translating it, I understtod she wanted to buy it from him (since he had already dran part of the miso soup and she's a pervert). Now, you are making me wonder if she couldn't be trying to say it'd be a waste, but the thing about the savings throws me off (food should be covered by home expenses, not by their savings). It's true that It took me a while to make sense of this part, specially since it doesn't have enough context to clear the meaning. If she does mean it's a waste, I suppose the first part should be translated as something like "Doesn't that cost 30,000 yean [for] each ten grams?" and the second maybe "Won't it be a blow to our savings?" or something of the like. If you think it fits better, please change it.--Kemm (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2013 (CDT)

Ahh. Thank you for the original wording! That is in fact unequivocally past tense! Expanding slightly, 'juu gram de san man en mo _shita_ no da yo', 'chokin wo hataite _katta_ no da yo'! 'shita' (in this case, paid), past tense; 'katta' (bought), pass tense. The 'n' is a contraction of 'no', which in this case indicates an explanation (rather than a normal statement). This is definitely not an offer in the present, but a description of the past (trying to appeal to him emotionally to stop him from throwing away the rest). It was her own savings because it wasn't the miso soup (food) she bought with her savings, it was the expensive, extremely suspicious thing that she added to it (which she wants him to drink and which is why he's pouring out the miso soup in the first place). If it were an offer in the present, at the least the verb tenses would be 'suru' and 'kau' or related. Changing the text to reflect the past-tense nature after all. Again, thank you! -Multipartite (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2013 (CDT)

The problem is that they should be worded as questions (they do have question marks, at least).--Kemm (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2013 (CDT)

That is because she is pleading. In this situation, the tone upturn is 'asking for him to somehow not go through with discarding it' rather than 'asking for the answer to a question'. A '.' would not have an upturn, and a '!' would go up, but be more direct and strident. I see your point regarding wanting to keep that phrasing, but lack confidence in my ability to make it work in English. If I had to do it, I would probably end the sentences with '[...], you see? [...], you see?', which sounds more awkward to read than substituting in '!'s. In the version I've suggested, as far as I can tell the essential elements of meaning and emotion are conveyed (while sounding less awkward than the alternative); if you wish to change the phrasing to include the question marks, I will not stop you, but I hope that the meaning of the past tense verbs is understood and left unchanged. Thank you again! -Multipartite (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2013 (CDT)