Killing Bites - Vol. 8 Ch. 37 - My Grand Ancestor

[neorasp]

@Arcenciel
i cant agree that a wrong tl could just be left at raws. it breaks the immersion when jumping in the middle of the santance from one languege לאחרת.
you say quantity does matter, but its false. even if a work has 1000 mistakes but has 10000 things gotten right and all the mistakes ware minor stuff that did not carry on and influance the rest of the project than the work is still fine.
is that your current argument? the mistakes are minor and do not deviate from the plot, but whats important is that they stack? sure mistakes stack, but unless the accumulated mistakes changed the interpetation of the work it matters not. can you show me how a combination of 2 or more mistakes in the mtl changed the plot of the chapter? can you?

> Where did you get the above?
the location of the speech bubble + inaba's open mouth made it seem like she was the one speaking. so if she runs with him while shouting back she is gonna explain something to him while her underling are franticly reaching out, the impression that she was getting with him to somewhere others will not interrupt was created.
>but ui is inaba's name
a. it could be another random sound like 'um'
b. sometimes characters in manga/anime refer to themselves in third person.

>Again, where the hell did you get this?
4th page, 3rd panel, there ware 2 speech bubbles
the content of the 2nd bubble could be seen as the underling being worried about the investor, aka about the match being left as is.

>the impression i got was that rabbit was removing Nomoto from the scene, to keep him in the dark.
where did you get the above?

>Wow, just wow. Are you seriously saying this?
nope. I was showing you just how much effort you did in proving your claims.
if you see how that much effort does not suffice, you can see how your argument is VERY lacking. so instead of simply stating 'in mtl this happens and in ltl that happens' you need to properly explain how this affected the plot. if you can't give such an explenetion and simply state subjective facts than your arguments sir, are a joke, and you are a joke for expecting me to seriously respond to them.

Want a proper debate? give me you side of the argument and ill respond in kind. if you are serious ill be as well, and if you are lazy in proving your theory ill put just as much effort refuting it.

 

[Arcenciel]

@neorasp

>if you see how that much effort does not suffice, you can see how your argument is VERY lacking

The two are not even remotely the same. I stated the mistranslations, and assumed you have enough brains to determine what went wrong from there. Clearly i was wrong.

>so instead of simply stating 'in mtl this happens and in ltl that happens' you need to properly explain how this affected the plot.

So this is the level of effort you demand? That we shouldn't just state things and should explain further? You're not keeping to this standard in your own arguments tho. When you refute something, you just state things and leave it up to me to draw my own inferences too. I'll call this your Rule A, and will just say Rule A everytime you're being a hypocrite going forward.

>you say quantity does matter, but its false. even if a work has 1000 mistakes but has 10000 things gotten right

What about 1000 mistakes in 5000 things? Because the mtl was closer to that.

>can you show me how a combination of 2 or more mistakes in the mtl changed the plot of the chapter? can you?

Pay attention. I just did in my last post. Copypasta: This tells me that rabbit is trying to keep random dude A from teaching nomoto(the investor of tasmanian) about the rules. And left me wondering why. That's a change in plot, because it left me questioning rabbit's current motivations and allegiances, and if there were some new rules in place.

>a. it could be another random sound like 'um'

Lmao. The same way neorasp could also be a random sound amirite? Try again.

>b. sometimes characters in manga/anime refer to themselves in third person.

Except Inaba isn't a new character, and she never has this speech tic previously, so this isn't a mistake anyone can reasonably make. Anyway. It sounds like your defence here is that you were somehow able to infer the correct translation from context, because you misinterpreted the mistranslation. What do you know? Two wrongs do make a right lol. Let me clap for you.

>4th page, 3rd panel, there ware 2 speech bubbles
the content of the 2nd bubble could be seen as the underling being worried about the investor, aka about the match being left as is.

Rule A. Don't just state things. You need to properly explain how you reached that conclusion.

>>the impression i got was that rabbit was removing Nomoto from the scene, to keep him in the dark. Where did you get the above?

Pay attention. I just did in my last post. Copypasta: >um... ui<rabbit>... we<crowd plus rabbbit> should tell<teach> him<Nomoto> how to play the game<rules of the fight.
This tells me that random dude A wants to teach Nomoto about the rules of the ongoing fight.
>Stop Stop, it can't be helped<why? why must Random Dude A stop talking? and why can't it be helped>, we can't tell the investor<random crowd and rabbit can't tell the investor Nomoto the rules of the fight>

This tells me that rabbit is trying to keep random dude A from teaching nomoto(the investor of tasmanian) about the rules. And left me wondering why. That's a change in plot, because it left me questioning rabbit's current motivations and allegiances, and if there were some new rules in place.

 

[neorasp]

>If you can't see my logic from the general statement of my argument you are an idiot
and if you can't see my logic from my counter statements then you are an idiot.
Stop throwing tenntrums. can't you at least pretend to be an adult? the world isn't as kind as to let this kind of beheviour end in happy ending, no matter what stories you are fed with.

>you are not keeping to your own standard
as stated before: as the one with the original argument its up to -you- to set up the standard level of explenation required. i don't care if you set it low- in fact, its easier to state 'you are wrong lol' than to actually explain - but whatever level of explaining you give, ill follow.
Moving on.

>1000 in 5000
as long as the plot remained intact, isn't it still a translation?

>pay attention
i asked for a combination; that is, each mistake by itself would have been fine but because both existed a misinterpetation occured.
you haven't given that.

>neorasp is a slip of the tongue
single sylleble are more likely to be a tongue slip than a complicated name. 'ui' 'um' 'oy' 'ha' 'un' 'gah' etc are more often than not exlemention words rather than part of a sentance.

>she never had this speech tic previously
this is an mtl, and while reading that we need to bear that in mind since the translator did point it out in page 1. that being said, A. was the more logial reason in my eyes.

>your interpataion of the mtl was wrong thats why you ware right in the end
why do you think my interptation was wrong? you failed to explain that.

>rule A don't just state, explain
I have adressed this point earlier in this post. either you properly explain whats wrong with my argument, or either you try to explain in your own words what is happenening in the mtl so we can discuss your pov. remember - your claim, your standards.

>This tells me that rabbit is trying to keep random dude A from teaching nomoto
Nope. while the dude itself might get that impression, we as readers know the characters well enough to know that inaba was worried about what minamoto could say. we could see this as inaba making up excuses to cover the truth from her suburdiantes. so rabbit told the dude minamoto shouldn't learn about the fights. she is leading a life of deceit an we as readers know that what she says and what she thinks are not always the same.
so again, how did you get that impression? what made you think inaba was speaking true?

 

[Arcenciel]

@neorasp

>Stop throwing tenntrums. can't you at least pretend to be an adult?

Says the guy who swung first. I laid out the errors civilly. You responded by calling me a backpedaller. You set the tone for this argument. If you don't like it when people resort to personal attacks instead of focusing on the issue at hand, maybe don't do personal attacks in the first place?

>the world isn't as kind as to let this kind of beheviour end in happy ending, no matter what stories you are fed with.

Is that a threat?

>as long as the plot remained intact, isn't it still a translation?

Not in my opinion. There is a point where too much is too much. Anyway, this point is completely subjective, and you are entitled to disagree. Not like anyone can really go in and state "20% error rate is the tipping point!". I just wanted to know where you stand on this.

>i asked for a combination; that is, each mistake by itself would have been fine but because both existed a misinterpetation occured.
you haven't given that.

I'm combining this with the last point, since it's basically the same thing.

>'ui' 'um' 'oy' 'ha' 'un' 'gah' etc are more often than not exlemention words rather than part of a sentance.

You are seriously still persisting on this. You are seriously trying to say that, in a conversation where a person named "Ui" is a direct participant, and someone says "Ui", your immediate assumption is that it's a random sound and not that Ui is being addressed. You are seriously still saying that. I can't even. I'm strongly beginning to think you're just trolling at this point. Ui isn't even an "exlemention word". Find me a single instance, in any Japanese or English media, where Ui is used as an exclamation word.

>why do you think my interptation was wrong? you failed to explain that.

Because no reasonable person can possibly think that Ui is a random sound! Lord, are you that dense?

>I have adressed this point earlier in this post. either you properly explain whats wrong with my argument, or either you try to explain in your own words what is happenening in the mtl so we can discuss your pov. remember - your claim, your standards.

Except you're the one making a claim here. You are making the claim that "4th page, 3rd panel, there ware 2 speech bubbles the content of the 2nd bubble could be seen as the underling being worried about the investor, aka about the match being left as is." So you can't follow rule A. But you expect me to follow rule A. Because you're a hypocrite. Got it.

>Nope. while the dude itself might get that impression, we as readers know the characters well enough to know that inaba was worried about what minamoto could say. we could see this as inaba making up excuses to cover the truth from her suburdiantes. so rabbit told the dude minamoto shouldn't learn about the fights. she is leading a life of deceit an we as readers know that what she says and what she thinks are not always the same. so again, how did you get that impression? what made you think inaba was speaking true?

I got the impression, because she said "we can't tell the investor". Just one panel ago, she said "i can explain all of this later". Which implies that "all of this" does not encompass the rules the match, or she would have said "i'll explain it to him later".

 

[neorasp]

@Arcenciel
While i ackonoledge that we both had vanom in our comment since the very begining, my comments, including me pointing out your goalpost moving, was relevant to the core of the discussion while you are simply spewing more and more ad-hominem and insults that serve no other porpuse other than to let off steam. This is why i called it a tentrum.
Moving on-

>is that a threat
no. you are misinterepting stuff again.

>this is my opinion, where do you stand
earlier, in the example of the fish and steak we agreed (you and me) that minor details do not make a tl trash as long as it doesnt affect the plot.
while i can see that the more mistakes there are the less chance the plot will remain intact, i still think that sheer volume of mistakes itself is no cause for trashing. sometimes one mistake is all that is needed, sometimes many mistakes can pass in peace- it depends on the mistakes themselves.

>'ui' can only be inaba's name and nothing else and i can't beleive you think otherwise
just 'ui''? not a start of a word that starts with 'ui', not a random explamation word shouted in the confusion of th excitment, 'ui' must be inaba's ui? and all you got in retort is 'are you still eriously saying that?'? yes i am seriously saying that. finding you 'ui' uses in other works i can't - i don't know how to search- would you accept 'oy' instead? so many stuff can be considered elamation words- 'uuu', 'uo', 'ou'... yet you are insisting ui can't be mistaken as one. desppite it beeing so close to 'ooi' that its easy to mtl to confuse the two.
I can't see this insistance as anything but stuborness on your part, but i could be wrong.

Can you than at least agree that 'ui' can be a start of another word? as in, starting to say something and regretting in the middle.

>you are the one making a claim
you made the claim that the mtl wasn't a tl at all wasn't made by you and you are not trying to prove it by showing how its shortcomings robs it of the 'translation' definition. you also made the claim that panels x on pages y support your main claim, but you failed to give a detailed explenation on why is that.
you didn't fail to point out my explanation lacked details when refuting your detailess explanation. sasuga.

>i got the impression because she said 'we can't tell the investor'
i do not see why 'all of this' does not encompass the rules of the match. but more importantly, i can't see why 'ill explain him all of this' turned into 'i don't want him to know what is going on'.

 

[Arcenciel]

>just 'ui''? not a start of a word that starts with 'ui', not a random explamation word shouted in the confusion of th excitment, 'ui' must be inaba's ui? and all you got in retort is 'are you still eriously saying that?'? yes i am seriously saying that. finding you 'ui' uses in other works i can't - i don't know how to search- would you accept 'oy' instead? so many stuff can be considered elamation words- 'uuu', 'uo', 'ou'... yet you are insisting ui can't be mistaken as one. desppite it beeing so close to 'ooi' that its easy to mtl to confuse the two.
I can't see this insistance as anything but stuborness on your part, but i could be wrong.

No. If you paid attention, my main point is that no reasonable person could have made this error, because "in a conversation where a person named "Ui" is a direct participant, and someone says "Ui", your immediate assumption is that it's a random sound and not that Ui is being addressed". Then your next defence is, you can't and don't have prove a claim you made because reasons? Must be nice, being able to claim whatever you want, then insist that it be taken as indisputable proof even though you produce no evidence. If only you were bound by rule A too, but i suppose rule A doesn't apply to hypocrites. No i won't accept Oy; that's an actual exclamation word.

And now you're shifting goalposts and trying to claim that it's half a word which got cut off. So let me just rehash my earlier argument: "in a conversation where a person named "Ui" is a direct participant, and someone says "Ui", your immediate assumption is that it's a HALF-WORD and not that Ui is being addressed?"

Whatever. Your insistence of defending this indefensible point has me convinced. You're just trolling and never had any intention to argue in good faith from the start. Good job. You managed to push all my buttons and wasted like 3 hrs of my life. Ciao. I won't even bother to reply to the rest. Let the world see you for the troll(or the idiot) that you are.

 

[neorasp]

@Arcenciel
There are 2 main failures that presist in your nerrative.
the first one is your inability to see that 'ui' which can be close to adjertives such as 'oy' 'uwi' etc might stand in itself as a sound a person might make in confusion or excitment. just because 'ui' is a given name doesn't mean that the only option is the name as the meaning. the fact the bubble was on that person's side of the panel which often indicates they are the speaker further help removing the impression that the sound in question could have been none other than the name.

your second failure is your complete refusel to explain your point beyond 'panels x pages y this and that happens'. i asked you to explain, you called me an idiot and left it at that- i ask you once more: EXPLAIN YOURSELF. YOU MADE THE ARGUMENT and you can't even do that much?

Oh well. its good that you acknoldge this is an argument that you lost. a pity you are such a sore loser as to call me a troll, but i already realized you are one several days ago so whatever. I just hope you will think twice next time you insult another person efforts.

 

[Arcenciel]

@neorasp

Hush. You've done enough. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[neorasp]

@Arcenciel

not really, I'm not teasing you for being mistaken or any unsavory act of that sort. i was marely providing a finishing comment to the discussion.

 

[HobieYoon]

I also noticed a few things about the beta scanlation

-Unnecessary swearing added to Nomoto’s lines
He’s not aggressive

-The part where Nomoto and Tasuku were talking about Oogami made no sense... what’s a rotol?

-The part where Pure had a small talk with Oogami before their match started was butchered... pure wtf are u saying lol

-The beta scanlate missed a page.

-No Japanese honorifics were used

That’s all I have for this. I’m not trying to start further arguments, I just had to point these out even though Arcenciel pointed out most of the errors

K, bye

 

[Reekris45]

"This Shelf-Free translation brought to you by Raptor Scans"

lmaoooo they throwing shade at me

I'll remember that ELH xD

 

[marcyvq]

just another dude with a giant animal head huh?

 

[Valle_reading_manga]

Nomoto almost immediately exposing Inabata, I'm sure that "right time" to come clean is never
How'd he never hear of those rumours before though...

---

Oh the lesbian couple

 

[the_zrn172213]

Uh oh.