Honzuki no Gekokujou: Shisho ni Naru tame ni wa Shudan o Erandeiraremasen—Dai-3 Bu: Ryouchi ni Hon o Hirogeyou! - Vol. 1 Ch. 5 - Reunion with the Gil…

[MangaDex]

 

[Hicleric]

Sorry Fran, Myne does bring up a good point that interacting with written words isn't the same as reading (see also: F451, and recent discussions on whether society is moving in a post-literate direction).

It's nice to read a cleaner version of this, and I can appreciate the artist's efforts more this time around. The leg imagery on her meeting with Lutz is an interesting choice that worked pretty well

Do want to note that "unadulterated" is a bit of an odd choice with regards to delivering a report, since it implies that something would have been added, vs something removed (which is why "unfiltered" is more commonly used)

 

[FullDiver]

Do want to note that "unadulterated" is a bit of an odd choice with regards to delivering a report, since it implies that something would have been added, vs something removed (which is why "unfiltered" is more commonly used)

Translator here. Assuming the report should be

1. the truth
2. the whole truth
3. nothing but the truth

my first instinct when it comes to expecting a false report is to look for violations to #3 (i.e. lies that "adulterate" the truth, hence my word choice), while it seems that yours is to assess #2, to look for omissions.
As far as I can tell, Ferdinand expects the agents to modify their report in some way to suit their own ends, though whether that means omitting details or straight up lying about things, I can't say.

 

[Hicleric]

Translator here. Assuming the report should be

1. the truth
2. the whole truth
3. nothing but the truth

my first instinct when it comes to expecting a false report is to look for violations to #3 (i.e. lies that "adulterate" the truth, hence my word choice), while it seems that yours is to assess #2, to look for omissions.
As far as I can tell, Ferdinand expects the agents to modify their report in some way to suit their own ends, though whether that means omitting details or straight up lying about things, I can't say.

That's a fair argument, but idiomatically (American) English tends to focus on the absence of facts rather than an added untruth. I don't ever hear "unadulterated" used like that, but I do hear "unfiltered" and its ilk. Likewise, consider the phrase "tell me [everything], and don't leave anything out" which is commonly heard but the converse "don't add anything in" doesn't seem to be in use. Culturally, I imagine it's because active lying is treated differently from omission. I don't know if Japanese treats it similarly, though.

To avoid something like injecting opinion (a valid concern, but less in keeping with Ferdi's prior treatment of Benno) you'd more likely hear "unvarnished". Just my two cents 🤷

 

[Kathartes]

IMO you should check out official LNs to keep terminology consistent.
For example, "starbond" ceremony should be "starbound" because (minor spoiler) the gods literally bound the couple's threads of fate together when they got married. Or "scholars" is better fit than "civil agents," as the scope of their duties are much wider than just government paperwork.

 

[Beregorn]

That's a fair argument, but idiomatically (American) English tends to focus on the absence of facts rather than an added untruth. I don't ever hear "unadulterated" used like that, but I do hear "unfiltered" and its ilk. Likewise, consider the phrase "tell me [everything], and don't leave anything out" which is commonly heard but the converse "don't add anything in" doesn't seem to be in use. Culturally, I imagine it's because active lying is treated differently from omission. I don't know if Japanese treats it similarly, though.

To avoid something like injecting opinion (a valid concern, but less in keeping with Ferdi's prior treatment of Benno) you'd more likely hear "unvarnished". Just my two cents 🤷

To me, as a non-native speaker, unfiltered means without the polite wording you use to sugarcoat a report that wouldn't be particularly flattering otherwise. Filtered or unfiltered, the core truth remain the same, it changes the light under wich it is shined.
Adulterated means it diverges from reality in order to further someone's interest.

 

[Primalmoon]

I think of "unvarnished", "unfiltered", "unadulterated", "unembellished", perhaps "unglazed" or "unlacquered", and "unaltered"... All of them could apply, and they all have different nuances depending on your understanding of English and your understanding of the word in other contexts.

• Unvarnished / unglazed / unlacquered would mean to me to not add/rephrase anything that is just to make it look better.
  • Don't say "We'll save a lot on food expenses" instead of "Half of our staff died of the plague"
  • Reasoning: varnishes / glazes / lacquers change the appearance of something while still technically leaving the details there for you to see. Some of them can be more or less transparent, or change the color.
• Unfiltered would mean to not remove anything to make it look better
  • Don't leave out some thing that would otherwise be embarrassing or damaging, whoever that might apply to.
  • Can overlap with unvarnished / unglazed / unlacquered since rephrasing things is one way to filter out bad details.
• Unembellished would mean to not add anything that wasn't already there / isn't relevant / isn't necessary
  • Don't go talk about the nice play you happened to see as a distraction from all of the bad news.
  • Embellishments can also be outright lies... Don't do that either.
• Unaltered would mean to not change anything, for any reason, positive or negative.
• Unadulterated would also mean to not change anything, but the strength of the word comes with lots of extra caveats:
  • Interpretation 1: Any changes ruin the entire thing. Changing a single bit would render the story adulterated.
    • Extra implication from someone high up talking to someone lower: Anything you change would be considered adulteration because you are lowborn trash and can't be trusted.
  • Interpretation 2: Some changes are ok... but don't be extreme about it. Don't go so far that someone would call the story adulterated.