Boku no Kanojo ga Kyonyuu Dattara. Oppai Anthology Comic - Vol. 1 Ch. 6

[Neushaartje]

And, since spoken dialogue cannot have punctuation errors, a translation should no more attempt to replicate these than capitalization errors, nor to use an obvious spelling error to motivate a translation of the wrong word.

I would absolutely misspell on purpose to capture purposeful misspellings in the source which are there to create an effect.

This is why you want a localization. You have no conception of Japanese fictional culture and how deliberately fast and lose it plays with many parts of the Japanese language and orthography to create an effect. In fact, it makes me realize I haven't gone far enough because Japanese lines are really the Japanese version of “So anywayz, I was like, well you know l0l...” type things. They use those in chat bubbles to create an effect and set a mood.

In which case you are attempting to localize. Your claim not to do so was yet another ad hoc bit of bullshit.

No, I translate from Japanese to English. The original is in Japanese not in English, what I change is the language while keeping the same tone and præserving the culture.

What you want is that I adapt it to English fictional culture which tends to avoid slang and casual tone.

No, you pseudo-localize them into a faux-Londoner dialect, when you could translate the Japanese into some authentic English dialect, and preferably into one that didn't flog the readers.

I translate the standard form of the capital to the standard form of the capital?

What do you expect, Tokyo to Liverpool dialect?

Given your ad hoc bullshit claim about “mate” being a modal particle, no one should buy your claims to have mastered either English or Japanese sufficiently to make such pronouncements with credibility.

No one here imagines Japanese to be simply a rigidly formal language. No one. Instead, some of us find your attempts at the English language to be incompetent and otherwise annoying.

Please, you demand that the words “mate” and “innit” never be used. You said so yourself. That they should be used under no circumstances. You clearly want to avoid colloquialisms at all cost.

But let me ask you then:

We have two sentences:

• Totemo sinpaisiteirunodeha naika?
• Mettya sinpaisitenzyan?

How would you translate both of these? I would translate the former to “He's very worried, is he not?” and the second to “He's proper worried innit?” How would you translate either?

 

[Oeconomist]

I would absolutely misspell on purpose to capture purposeful misspellings in the source which are there to create an effect.

Speakers cannot misspell words in use. And they cannot mispunctuate. You just aren't competent at English-language punctuation, which incompetence wouldn't be awful, except that you bullshit and double-down rather that admit error.

This is why you want a localization.

No, I don't want a localization; no one here has asked for a localization. Some here are repelled by the results of your attempting to localize manga to London.

You have no conception of Japanese fictional culture and how deliberately fast and lose it plays with many parts of the Japanese language and orthography to create an effect.

To the extent that the argument is about dialect, the argument is about your incompetence with Londoner dialect, not about Japanese dialect. No one here is going to fall for your straw-man argument, so I suggest that you stop waling on the straw man.

No, I translate from Japanese to English.

Again, you are attempting to relocalize to London; and, because you aren't faithful to that dialect, which you seem not to understand, your relocalization is a failure. Now, if you really did relocalize, then other people would still be annoyed; but you haven't been successful. If you're not just trolling, then you're something of a chuunibyou, caught-up in a fantasy about your abilities.

I translate the standard form of the capital to the standard form of the capital?

Your localization isn't to the standard form — nor to the common form — of any capital. But no capital is simply the capital, whether we refer to London or to Ottowa or to some other capital.

you demand that the words “mate” and “innit” never be used.

No, I don't. I've noted that various people have objected to exactly and only one or both of those, and I have noted that your dropping of them would be sufficient to satisify most of those people. But I've explicitly stated that I'd settle for your punctuating properly and ceasing to bullshit in the comments. So, again, you're battling a straw man.

We have two sentences:

• totemo sinpaisiteirunodeha naika?
• mettya sinpaisitenzyan?

How would you translate both of these? I would translate the former to “He's very very worried, is he not?” and the second to “He's proper worried innit?[/i] How would you translate either?

Well, you've quite hosed-up each.

The form “is he not” is very formal, while “very very” is informal. British formality tends to understatement, so if you want British English then “He's quite worried, is he not?” whereas North-American formality would be “He's extremely worried, is he not?”

The term “innit” is highly informal, but actual speakers don't use it willy nilly with all numbers, genders, and persons. When the subject is a singular male, a typical, informal Londoner is going to use “ain't he” or “isn't he”. A typical Ottowan or resident of Toronto will use “isn't he”; a typical Washingtonian will use “ain't he”; a typical New Yorker will use “isn't he”, but “ain't he” will be a close second.

 

[Neushaartje]

The form “is he not” is very formal

So is “-nodeha naika”. Almost no one says this outside of newspaper articles and fiction. Which is my point. The form “-nzya naika” roughly corresponds to “isn't it?”; it's acceptable in normal speech and in a professional setting where “-zyan” which is about on the level of “innit” is not.

while “very very” is informal. British formality tends to understatement, so if you want British English then “He's quite worried, is he not?” whereas North-American formality would be “He's extremely worried, is he not?”

The word “totemo” by no measure means “extremely”

The term “innit” is highly informal, but actual speakers don't use it willy nilly with all numbers, genders, and persons. When the subject is a singular male, a typical, informal Londoner is going to use “ain't he” or “isn't he”. A typical Ottowan or resident of Toronto will use “isn't he”; a typical Washingtonian will use “ain't he”; a typical New Yorker will use “isn't he”, but “ain't he” will be a close second.

You demonstrate that you don't know how “innit” works here. It's notorious for being able to replace any tag regardless of number or person.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...d-teenagers1/D4A2B9DEE76D942EDC039A7DA5AA1D9B

If you think “innit” is not used in sentenes such a “He's so sick innit.” or “She really is beautiful innit.” or ”I just woke up innit.”, you're wrong.

Furthermore, “ain't he” is a very different tone from either “innit” or “zyan” and is a better translation of “-zyanee”. “ain't he” is more aggressive than “innit” and less youthful and on top of it can't be used for emphasis which both “-zyan” and “innit” can.

I'm not impressed and you've betrayed yourself as someone who doesn't know how “innit” works. It's not a mere contraction of “isn't it” any more in modern London English and it is used “willy nilly with all numbers, genders, and persons” and that you didn't know this betrays your lack of familiarity with it. “He's proper worried innit.” is completely fine young London English nowadays.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oeconomist]

So is “-nodeha naika”. Almost no one says this outside of newspaper articles and fiction. Which is my point. The form “-nzya naika” roughly corresponds to “isn't it?”; it's acceptable in normal speech and in a professional setting where “-zyan” which is about on the level of “innit” is not.

Don't blahblahblah as if that much is disputed. The point is that you mixed formal and informal English in one sentence.

The word “totemo” by no measure means “extremely”

Sorry, ESL dude, but “very very” (which you used) is the informal equivalent of “extremely”. So, if “extremely” doesn't cut it, then neither did “very very”. And, while I don't trust your Japanese because of your bullshitting about English, my criticism have been directed at your attempts at the latter. (Knowing Japanese does not imply knowing how to translate from Japanese to English.)

You demonstrate that you don't know how “innit” works here. It's notorious for being able to replace any tag regardless of number or person.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...d-teenagers1/D4A2B9DEE76D942EDC039A7DA5AA1D9B

If you think “innit” is not used in sentenes such a “He's a nice guy innit.” or “She really is beautiful innit.” or ”I just woke up innit.”, you're wrong.

If you think that reddit is a reliable source for scholarship, then you are of course hopeless.

As to COLT, just how many instances of “innit” other than with a third person singular neuter does one find? With its assemblers, and with Professor Martinez (whose article you cite), we have poor social science effected by non-native speakers.

(Native speakers have the advantage that own experience leads them away from some errors. A native Anglophone investigating a language other than English might likewise make a hash of things.)

Furthermore, “ain't he” is a very different tone from either “innit”

Nope; each is at about the same level of extreme informality.

I'm not impressed

I'm not concerned to impress you. I'm concerned to explain the grotesqueries of your translation and of your comments to other people reading here.

When I first commented to a different translation by you, indeed I was commenting with you as the target audience. But, over time, I realized that trying to get you to do a proper job was a lost cause.

you've betrayed yourself as someone who doesn't know how “innit” works.

No, I'm simply a native speaker rejecting an ESL clusterfuck.

It's not a mere contraction of “isn't it”

Nor is “ain't it” merely a contraction, so you're again engaged in straw-man argumentation.

it is used “willy nilly with all numbers, genders, and persons”

Not by the typical speaker in Londoner dialect.

And, once again: As much as others may want you to stop dropping “mate” and “innit” everywhere like a cat showing its power by shitting on the carpet everywhere, I would just settle for your punctuating properly and ceasing to bullshit in the comments. You can have your misapprehended and thus made-up dialect without my much caring.

 

[Neushaartje]

Don't blahblahblah as if that much is disputed. The point is that you mixed formal and informal English in one sentence.

Sorry, ESL dude, but “very very” (which you used) is the informal equivalent of “extremely”. So, if “extremely” doesn't cut it, then neither did “very very”. And, while I don't trust your Japanese because of your bullshitting about English, my criticism have been directed at your attempts at the latter. (Knowing Japanese does not imply knowing how to translate from Japanese to English.)

If you think that reddit is a reliable source for scholarship, then you are of course hopeless.

As to COLT, just how many instances of “innit” other than with a third person singular neuter does one find? With its assemblers, and with Professor Martinez (whose article you cite), we have poor social science effected by non-native speakers.

(Native speakers have the advantage that own experience leads them away from some errors. A native Anglophone investigating a language other than English might likewise make a hash of things.)

Nope; each is at about the same level of extreme informality.

I'm not concerned to impress you. I'm concerned to explain the grotesqueries of your translation and of your comments to other people reading here.

When I first commented to a different translation by you, indeed I was commenting with you as the target audience. But, over time, I realized that trying to get you to do a proper job was a lost cause.

No, I'm simply a native speaker rejecting an ESL clusterfuck.

Nor is “ain't it” merely a contraction, so you're again engaged in straw-man argumentation.

Not by the typical speaker in Londoner dialect.

And, once again: As much as others may want you to stop dropping “mate” and “innit” everywhere like a cat showing its power by shitting on the carpet everywhere, I would just settle for your punctuating properly and ceasing to bullshit in the comments. You can have your misapprehended and thus made-up dialect without my much caring.

Yes, once again. As the last time with punctuation. Once being shown that you don't know how things work with ample citations to the contrary, you fall back on that you simply know better than how people use it.

It's clear as day at this point you have absolutely no conception of how “innit” works if you think sentences such as “He's proper worried innit.” or “I just woke up innit.” do not reflect it's usage. It's well noted and studied as an invariant tag and everyone who's ever been around people that use it would know this. This isn't merely Reddit where native Brits tell you the same, but also the research I cited which studies this particular phaenomenon as interesting that it has long become an invariant tag irrespective of the person and number of the subject, and verb it replaces.

You speak confidently, but you know little of the subjects of which you speak.

Of whatever dialect of English you are a native speaker, it is clearly not London English by your mistaken ideas of how “innit” functions in it.

 

[Oeconomist]

Yes, once again. As the last time with punctuation.

The last time with punctuation, you insisted that “mate” and “man” needn't be punctuated as vocatives because they were “undeniably” actually modal. Challenged to explain just what that modality were, you went silent.

(Of course, you'd also been failing properly to punctuate any other vocative, though you began to get better about those other vocatives.)

Once being shown that you don't know how things work with ample citations to the contrary,

Your claim then was that standard use were revealed by common use, and I noted that it was not. (Standard use is established by the use in published work, not in things such as Internet chat rooms. And published work does all not count equally. The convention of “thru” for “through” has prevailed for many decades in American comic books, but has not become standard; nor has ending every sentence with an exclamation mark when not a question.)

you fall back on that you simply know better than how people use it.

No, I pointed-out then as I pointed-out now what is wrong with your citation. In the earlier case, the problem was citing common use as if standard. And now, with respect to the new citation, I again (rhetorically) ask

As to COLT, just how many instances of “innit” other than with a third person singular neuter does one find?

Your inability to answer that question, very basic to the quality of the citation here, shows how poor your own scholarship is. In my field of scientific endeavour, not offering a comparable statistic would cause a paper to be rejected.

The rest of your comment simply proceeds as if your citation credibly establishes something that it does not.

 

[cinnathep0et]

...well i liked the translation.

 

[feha]

Well, if the original is bad, on which opinions differ, then to translate it, it should be made just as bad now shouldn't it?
But I don't think it's bad. The entire point of this title and really the only thing that makes it memorable is that Yukina talks in very slangy, masculine speech, which of course befits the character and the character's identity as clearly being a tomboy having grown up among mostly male friends and having copied their speech.

I really disagree that a translator should attempt to make the work "bad" just cause the original is. The only exception is shitposts/copypastas, such as that korean shitpost novel "invisible dragon".

Also, if yukina speaks in a masculine slangy speech, why not give her a masculine speech? Why give her a very adult alcohol-addled low-brow slang speech pattern usually used (in movies) by low-profile criminals instead? Specifically a dialect only used if you are a lanky male teenager with ginger hair and far too many freckles? And even then only while drinking beer?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Translations from Japanese should always use British English for the simple reason that Japan and the U.K., due to both being industrialized iland nations, are noted to be culturally highly similar and that is reflected in the language.

Like Japanese, British English of all dialects has a more distinct difference between social classes, regional varieties, and gendered and aged speech than other varieties of English which can be used to better translate such indicators in Japanese lines.

Most of you simply read as what you are: You fell in love with highly localized, sterilized adapted translations to your culture that make no effort to capture the tone of the original so you don't even realize what's going on. At the end of the day, the moment you open this title in Japanese it's obvious from the first two sentences that Yukina uses highly slangy, masculine speech as a conscious choice. And such things aren't unusual in Japanese works either but often get discarded in translations. Gokuu also speaks in a rural country accent and his entire speech purposefully comes across as uneducated and childlike but almost all translations make him speak in normal, textbook English.

The first paragraph is just outright stupid, no ill intent meant. Mostly because they are most definitely not "culturally highly similar", and neither do their languages share many similarities.

Second paragraph is not outright wrong, but it tries to imply that this is not true of every other languages. And ignores the fact that what the differences those dialects actually have are highly different between languages, or even dialects. And the part about better translating the indicators this way, I completely disagree with.

Third paragraph makes some rather large (and incorrect) assumptions about me/us. Most[citation needed] ppl who read manga are not native english speakers, so any localization attempts aimed towards them will either fall flat or be missed entirely by those readers.

But yes, there is an implicit dialect used when translating jp works that we have gotten used to, which has evolved as translators has worked to convey speech-patterns etc., as 'an effort to capture the tone'. Funnily enough it's most definitely not 'proper' english (which is why licensed translations often reads so poorly compared to fantranslations). This language involves usage of non-standard notation (ie. the japanese square brackets), non-standard use of standard notation (ie. ~ from how the raws prolong vowels), loanwords (particularly japanese suffixes, titles or familial-relation words - as what exactly a character calls another carries a lot of meaning). There is also how the dialect has found the use of footnotes to be the correct way to speak (despite how in regular writing a footnote that doesn't point to a source is generally a sign that the author failed when writing the scene), where it is generally how you are meant to explain how a person refers to themselves (boku/watashi/atashi and so on are all translated to me/I, so the footnote is needed to specify which - like in your translation it feels like you forgot to additionally add a footnote to explain mc uses "boku", since quite frankly she feels like a boku-girl (and not a wanker)) or what dialect a heavily accented speaker use (just like how when writing an english novel you should never have a dwarf - or non-dwarf for that matter - speak heavy slang/irish-slang/gaelish/olde english, if you know what you are doing. And instead have it explained in a footnote (bad), or through narrator/inner-monologue taking note of the dialect. "Tell, don't show", so to speak.).

I could obviously go on listing more of those things, but cba, and frankly it feels like you probably already know about this (as ppl describe having debated the subject with you prior) and pretend you don't so you can shitpost.

Because your argument comes down to nothing more than “this is not pristine grammar”, and after my repeatingly pointing out that they aren't using pristine grammar in the source either and that I use pristine grammar to match pristine grammar you continue to ignore that.

What you want, what all of you want, is a localization, not a translation, which you won't get from me. You simply fell in love with a lie and have no idea what actual Japanese fiction sounds like and how much it embraces slang.

Correction: What you are doing is a localization (albeit not a good one), while ppl want a translation. A localization tries to translate additional things such as dialectal differences, subtle meanings and turns of phrases - losing a lot of accuracy in the process. It is why Ash ate "Jelly Donuts" and not onigiri ("common lunch parents give kids to eat at school in japan" -> "-||- in 'murica"), and it is why people similarly are complaining now just as they did back then.
As a comparison: most regular translations here simply translate things, and utilize footnotes or non-standard english to leave untranslatable things in the work. It is why we have the "onii-chan"s, the "sensei"s, and the "-kun"s. It is why we have footnotes to specify self-references or gender of pronouns.

Generally translation is considered more dirty and inferior to localization, because of how you either lose all extra meaning (as compared to the localization still conveying there is a difference in speech patterns, even if the actual difference is lost and inaccurate), or the reader needs to already have some understanding of the original language and culture while using a bastardization of english and "too many" footnotes. But for manga, the latter actually holds true (due to the sheer quantity ppl read), which is why in this field localizations are conversely what's considered inferior and intentionally throwing away all meaning and tone.

The comments themselves from this translator don't use this faux-Londoner dialect, but a number of his translations do. He has previously offered ostensible justification (across multiple series) for a variety of poor practices.

Part of the problem is that he really doesn't understand English in general nor the Londoner dialect in particular as well as he believes, and will engage in intellectual contortions rather than admit an error, and then dig-in his heels and keep repeating that error.

But, to some extent, he seems also to be trolling.

I see what you mean.

 

[Neushaartje]

The last time with punctuation, you insisted that “mate” and “man” needn't be punctuated as vocatives because they were “undeniably” actually modal. Challenged to explain just what that modality were, you went silent.

(Of course, you'd also been failing properly to punctuate any other vocative, though you began to get better about those other vocatives.)

Your claim then was that standard use were revealed by common use, and I noted that it was not. (Standard use is established by the use in published work, not in things such as Internet chat rooms. And published work does all not count equally. The convention of “thru” for “through” has prevailed for many decades in American comic books, but has not become standard; nor has ending every sentence with an exclamation mark when not a question.)

No, I pointed-out then as I pointed-out now what is wrong with your citation. In the earlier case, the problem was citing common use as if standard. And now, with respect to the new citation, I again (rhetorically) ask

Your inability to answer that question, very basic to the quality of the citation here, shows how poor your own scholarship is. In my field of scientific endeavour, not offering a comparable statistic would cause a paper to be rejected.

The rest of your comment simply proceeds as if your citation credibly establishes something that it does not.

Yes, again, so we're right back where we started. Despite denying it, you don't want to see slang. You want to see translations of highly vernacular, nonstandard Japanese into standard English, thereby ruining the original auctor's intent.

“-zyan” isn't “standard use”; it's vernacular teenage speech, just as “innit” is.

I really disagree that a translator should attempt to make the work "bad" just cause the original is. The only exception is shitposts/copypastas, such as that korean shitpost novel "invisible dragon".

So you don't want a translation that matches the original as closely as possible. You want it to simply be changed and adapted into something you would like more. A very common thing with translations from Japanese, rest assured, because most change lines and other characterizations how they see fit.

Also, if yukina speaks in a masculine slangy speech, why not give her a masculine speech? Why give her a very adult alcohol-addled low-brow slang speech pattern usually used (in movies) by low-profile criminals instead? Specifically a dialect only used if you are a lanky male teenager with ginger hair and far too many freckles? And even then only while drinking beer?

Because this is what the character sounds like in the original lines and this is by design and part of the identity of the character.

And you'll find that that's not at all uncommon in Japanese works. Perhaps something you missed because translations of Japanese tend to translation highly cartoonish, over the top slangy language or country dialects or things such as that and make it completely standard English, often when different registers are used as a contrast between two characters. In the original Japanese Dragon Ball. Gokuu speaks in extremely uneducated country Japanese with somewhat odd grammar and pronunciation of many words, whereas Gohan speaks in pristine, standard Japanese and is very polite in his speech. In most translations both end up sounding identically with really no way to tell from the line alone without context who said it. That's fairly standard for translations from Japanese.

Correction: What you are doing is a localization (albeit not a good one), while ppl want a translation. A localization tries to translate additional things such as dialectal differences, subtle meanings and turns of phrases - losing a lot of accuracy in the process. It is why Ash ate "Jelly Donuts" and not onigiri ("common lunch parents give kids to eat at school in japan" -> "-||- in 'murica"), and it is why people similarly are complaining now just as they did back then.
As a comparison: most regular translations here simply translate things, and utilize footnotes or non-standard english to leave untranslatable things in the work. It is why we have the "onii-chan"s, the "sensei"s, and the "-kun"s. It is why we have footnotes to specify self-references or gender of pronouns.

No, all those things are perfectly translatable. The way Yukina's comes across can very well be captured in English and I've done so. You simply don't like to read it because you would rather imagine the character doesn't come across that way because you don't actually enjoy Japanese fictional culture, but the fake pastiche of it you got used to.

This happens in more ways than one, there are mistranslations everywhere on purpose to appease weebs in what they expect, ”Love confession” “flat chest”, “I'll never forgive you”, “fufufufu” and various other things that are blatant but common mistranslations of the meaning of the original lines simply because weebs have mistakenly come to believe it's Japanese culture.

You've already admitted that you want translations to improve the original and change it so it no longer be bad by your own subjective tastes. It's clear that you don't want something that respects the meaning of the original, but simply want it to be changed in something suited to your own cultural tastes, in this case that would be characters that don't sound like: “a very adult alcohol-addled low-brow slang speech pattern usually used (in movies) by low-profile criminals instead? Specifically a dialect only used if you are a lanky male teenager with ginger hair and far too many freckles?”, regardless of whether the original sounds like that.

 

[feha]

So you don't want a translation that matches the original as closely as possible. You want it to simply be changed and adapted into something you would like more. A very common thing with translations from Japanese, rest assured, because most change lines and other characterizations how they see fit.

You clearly missed my entire point there, despite how I even wrapped the word in airquotes. If a work that's bad is translated, the translator does not have to intentionally try to make the translation poor. I could go into how what's being translated is the 'meaning', so a typo does not mean the translated word has to include a typo too (etc. With obvious exception being shitposts). But cba.

Because this is what the character sounds like in the original lines and this is by design and part of the identity of the character.

And you'll find that that's not at all uncommon in Japanese works. Perhaps something you missed because translations of Japanese tend to translation highly cartoonish, over the top slangy language or country dialects or things such as that and make it completely standard English, often when different registers are used as a contrast between two characters. In the original Japanese Dragon Ball. Gokuu speaks in extremely uneducated country Japanese with somewhat odd grammar and pronunciation of many words, whereas Gohan speaks in pristine, standard Japanese and is very polite in his speech. In most translations both end up sounding identically with really no way to tell from the line alone without context who said it. That's fairly standard for translations from Japanese.

The character specifically speaks with a dialect only used by lanky ginger-haired super-freckled teenage male drunkards (as I have been taught by hollywood)?
If that is true, then you did indeed pick a decent dialect I suppose. But I really doubt it, particularly as art-wise it looks more like the mangaka went for the boku-girl archetype (or something adjecent).
But even then, using an obnoxious [to read] dialect is usually avoided (for plenty of reasons - although some of them disappear when you localize instead of translate). Instead footnotes tend to be used, and various quirks might be retained by use of punctuations, suffixes or contractions (and so many more grammatical features).

No, all those things are perfectly translatable. The way Yukina's comes across can very well be captured in English and I've done so. You simply don't like to read it because you would rather imagine the character doesn't come across that way because you don't actually enjoy Japanese fictional culture, but the fake pastiche of it you got used to.

This happens in more ways than one, there are mistranslations everywhere on purpose to appease weebs in what they expect, ”Love confession” “flat chest”, “I'll never forgive you”, “fufufufu” and various other things that are blatant but common mistranslations of the meaning of the original lines simply because weebs have mistakenly come to believe it's Japanese culture.

I would say that I would love to see how you translate all the self-pronouns correctly, or all versions of onii/aniki... but I have a feeling you will pull up something atrocious that really doesn't hold the same connotations and make my eyes feel cursed (at least I have seen some translator making the same claim do that for "brother" before, and it truly was cursed to read).

I don't know what you mean about 'love confession' (unless you rather referred to how they usually say "like" instead of love - but that is not exclusive to confessions), nor "flat chest" (I have some guesses on what you mean, such as how sometimes they use the word "washboard" or other synonyms - but if that is what you meant then it would be a correct translation)?
As for "forgive", I assume you are complaining about how ppl are translating a word that basically means "unforgivable" correctly into correct grammar, such as "I [missing subject] won't forgive you [missing subject]"? Because japanese loves skipping parts that are required in english grammar? That is not a mistranslation then.
"fufufu" is something I am unsure why that is a mistranslation. Are you saying that the onomatopoeia is different in jp (not "fu") and annoyed that it is localized into synonymous onomatopoeia in translators native language instead of english? Because "fu" is ok in english (unlike "huehue" or "jaja"), so that would be wrong. But yes, onomatopoeia should always be either kept as-is (most preferable option), or translated into synonymous onomatopoeia from target-language. Try to avoid a third language suddenly showing up for them (this is hard, as ppl generally don't consider ones they are used to as not being in english too).

You've already admitted that you want translations to improve the original and change it so it no longer be bad by your own subjective tastes. It's clear that you don't want something that respects the meaning of the original, but simply want it to be changed in something suited to your own cultural tastes, in this case that would be characters that don't sound like: “a very adult alcohol-addled low-brow slang speech pattern usually used (in movies) by low-profile criminals instead? Specifically a dialect only used if you are a lanky male teenager with ginger hair and far too many freckles?”, regardless of whether the original sounds like that.

No, I were not speaking about subjective tastes when I said "bad", but rather about readability there. Simple stuff such as not forcing typos (unless part of a pun or otherwise intentional in original), poor grammar, unreadable dialects (not referring to 'faux-london' here, but rather faux-olde-english, gaelish (mixing gaelic+english) or simply 'food-in-mouthish'. Exception being that it is ok if a clean-written version is put next to it), or bad contrasts. But granted, I will concede I misunderstood what you meant then, as that part of my message was a response to what I took you to mean as "poor grammar -> poor grammar" etc..

As for your example where we imagine the character actually speaks in a dialect with actual identical connotations to your target dialect... Then I do agree that I still think it is generally wise to stay away from using that target dialect - simply because even what connotations ppl have changes depending on where/who you ask. Although that is a minor reason compared to the fact that most dialects are literally unintelligible to ppl not used to them (ie. hillbilly-english). Then there is also the question about how one types out said dialects as while adding words like "isn't it" or "mate" isn't too strange, usage of non-existent contractions is a whole anthill of issues (ie. 'innit' - though that specific case is somewhat of an exception due to hollywoods common usage of the dialect, and thus acceptable to replace "isn't it" with).



..You are clearly intentionally shitposting and baiting, so I won't bother continuing this convo further than that (hit my 2-or-3-replies-unless-i'm-actually-tilted-or-concerned limit for such cases).

 

[Oeconomist]

Yes, again, so we're right back where we started. Despite denying it, you don't want to see slang. You want to see translations of highly vernacular, nonstandard Japanese into standard English, thereby ruining the original auctor's intent.

“-zyan” isn't “standard use”; it's vernacular teenage speech, just as “innit” is.

No, you're right back to waling on a straw-man.

Most people want you to stop your ham-handed attempts at slang altogether, but I'd be happy enough just to see you use a slang correctly, and in any case that issue doesn't bug me much.

I want you to punctuate dialogue correctly.

I want you to stop your various bullshitting in the comments. That bullshitting includes

• your pseudo-scholarly pontifications,
• your use of straw-man arguments, and
• your pretense that an attempt at localization is not just that.

However, I do recognize that you're not going to change, either because your ego-fragility is in the way or because you're a troll. So I really just comment to help others swiftly to recognize your bad translations and bullshit for what they are.

 

[a_other_alt]

I liked it.
I didn't have a tantrum when I read the manga
I saw the word "mate" and went "Oh she must have some kind of dialect".
Also, Oeconomist, please, for the love of god, google what "ad hoc" means.

 

[Ochrolv]

Guys if you really want to read this but with a different translation that will make your experience better, here it is. @Oeconomist @feha @Mangamoz @blablablub hope this helps you guys since it is apart of an anthology. Careful with chapter 5 because the reception for it is polarizing for many.

 

[Oeconomist]

Also, Oeconomist, please, for the love of god, google what "ad hoc" means.

If you don't tag, then the other person is not notified when you make a reply. Of course, if you were trying to maintain an illusion that I used “ad hoc” incorrectly, then you wouldn't want a reply.

Originally Latin simply for “to this”, “ad hoc” in English means for this particular purpose. When I called two claims “ad hoc bullshit”, that was because those claims were hastily generated for particular purpose.

For example, after claiming that “mate” were a modal particle, he wasn't able to identify what its alleged modality were.

 

[immy]

Supporting slang/dialect TLs to annoy other weebs.

 

[mangadexer555]

At the end of the day translations will very person to person even for highly skilled scholars in Japanese. Enjoy it or wait for another translation.. or do it yourself Haha