Talk:Rakudai Kishi no Eiyuutan

Ok, should I really ask who wins in the duel? This is seriously old, our A rank knight gets distracte by happenance A or B and our "failure" wins. Anyway, is this worth reading? --Zuruumi (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2014 (CDT)

Well......it's a cliche ln that i personally very much enjoyed reading because of certain 'factors'. Like, there being almost a non-existent harem, while still having a harem tag. and the main heroine virtually getting all the spot light. plus the mc's character which is similar to a 'harem series' mc's BUUUUUT very different in the most important places....any more would be spoilers but for me who is a very very very serious harem hater, love rival curser to the very last fibre, this series is like a refreshing breeze of forbidden wind ¬(=3=)~ -- TheCatWalk

While reading the synopsis I get a "Absolute Duo" feeling specifically "one's soul can be morphed into a weapon," and the partners. Catwalk, you almost made me give up on this with the "plus the mc's character which is similar to a 'harem series'". I will test the waters. "forbidden wind" ha. All Night (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2014 (CDT)

Prologue title

I changed the prologue title from 出会いの朝 (deai no asa) to A Morning Encounter, mostly to replace the Japanese in the table of contents. Hopefully I haven't overstepped by doing so, not the least because a more exact translation of the grammar would have "encounter" as the modifier and "morning" as the noun, rather than vice versa. Please change it if the translator has something better in mind. -- KLSymph (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2014 (CDT)

TEASER??

This series already has a volume translated into English, how come it still have the "teaser" statue. Does this mean that the translator will abandon this project? Takatathien (talk)

No, he is not abandoning the project. KL is just doing final checks on Volume 1 before moving the project out of the "teaser" category. All Night (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2014 (CDT)

Thanks for telling me that. This is a good series and I really appreciate the translator's work ^.^ Takatathien (talk)

Questions regarding the English translation of the title

As quoted from the main page, the English title is "A Chivalry of the Failed Knight" (do correct me if im wrong). Chivalry is a noun in all forms of the word, therefore the particle "A" does not go with it, and my suggestion would be to remove it. My second point would be more questionable, which is on the particle "the", because the title does not specifically suggest the specfics which would require the usage of the particle "the". My (optional) suggestion would therefore be to use "a". Bowguyz (talk)

On the first point, being a noun does not forbid a word from taking the article "a"; in fact, only nouns and nominals (words that act as nouns) take articles. On the second point, "the Failed Knight" does refer to a specific person: the story's protagonist, who holds "Failed Knight" as a nickname. But in the end, "A Chivalry of the Failed Knight" is not a BT translation, but rather the official English title given by the publisher, so what can we do? -- KLSymph (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2014 (CST)

If it is the official English title (I wasnt aware of it before), than that's perfectly fine with me. While I agree that "a" can be preceded with nouns, the chivalry referred to here cannot warrant the usage of it. Since the title was given, then I would concur that nothing can be done Bowguyz (talk)

Well, the "Chivalry" in the title is attached to 英雄譚 ("heroic tale"), which most likely refers to an archaic definition of chivalry as "a chivalrous act; gallant deed". Under any of those meanings, "a chivalry" is possible, if not smooth. -- KLSymph (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2014 (CST)

Pretty sure its not just that it aint smooth, but that its grammatically incorrect. "The" would naturally be better because it refers to a specific act. --Bowguyz (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2014 (CST)

It's not grammatically wrong. The difference between "a" and "the" is one of nuance in meaning, and both of them are plausible; there is no grammatical rule forbidding either one. We don't know that the definite article is what is intended, since the zero article is also reasonable there. -- KLSymph (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2014 (CST)

I dont think thats true. "a" cannot be used for certain scenarios, i.e. "The stupidity of a certain person ruined my career." It's the same for this scenario. My English is not that good as to specifically point out the difference in nouns though. It could be, however, because Chivalry is noncount. "The" can be used with noncount nouns, or the article can be omitted entirely..... "A/an" can be used only with count nouns. --Bowguyz (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2014 (CST)

"Chivalry" is not uncountable in all of its definitions. For example, the archaic definition I quoted above is countable, which makes the title grammatical. This is also true for "stupidity"; there is a definition which makes "A stupidity of a certain person ruined my career" grammatical as well. -- KLSymph (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2014 (CST)

Would you mind giving me a sentence which uses the phrase "A stupidity", and provide me the "definition" as mentioned above? I want to see how it could be used so I can improve my English. --Bowguyz (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2014 (CST)

It is correct to say that "A/an" cannot be used for noncount. "The" can be used for noncount and thereby intangible objects. The archaic definition quoted is "a chivalrous act; gallant deed". However, that definition is incorrect, and we do not use archaic definitions in standard English anywhere except in legal terms. The next mostly likely definition of the word "chivalry" based on "eiyuutan" would probably be "An act of chivalry". As the "chivalry" in this case is intangible, we cannot use "a" and have to choose between "the" or not including a particle in the first place. On another note, if you need help with editing before the New Year, I'll be here. --Bowguyz (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2014 (CST)

• As an example of "a stupidity" in a sentence: [He] was endowed with a stupidity which by the least little stretch would go around the globe four times and tie. - Mark Twain in Eruption
• Separately, the definition I was referring to for your sentence is a stupid act, notion, speech, etc.
• Being archaic does not in itself make a definition wrong, and in any case the definition you're using ("an act of chivalry") is the same as the archaic definition ("a chivalrous act"). In both cases, the grammatical headword of the definition is the noun "act", not the adjectival "of chivalry" or "chivalrous", so the defined term takes the grammatical function of "act", including accepting the indefinite article (as both definitions demonstrate).
• Please be aware that usage is different from correctness: just because a turn of phrase is uncommon or requires a rare definition, that alone does not make it grammatically incorrect. Also, please note that a/an/the are articles, not particles.
• This discussion is starting to clutter the talk page. You should consider continuing it in the discussion forum.

-- KLSymph (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2014 (CST)

I feel like this conversation is going to a cancer-y path. Just a warningpls dont go there. We also need to clear this page.