Double-page supporter
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Messages
- 1,034
Magika Swordsman and Summoner - Ch. 75
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Why the hell did the pages decrease in this chapter?
@Elroy79 the word "King" is more suitable in this case because the highest position one can have in a country is the King. Ilyaelia is the ruler of russia, therefore, she should be king. One does not have to be male in order to be king, there have been many female kings in history.
@Elroy79 the word "King" is more suitable in this case because the highest position one can have in a country is the King. Ilyaelia is the ruler of russia, therefore, she should be king. One does not have to be male in order to be king, there have been many female kings in history.
Aggregator gang
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2018
- Messages
- 357
@crackkid, if it is a female ruler at the level of a king then she would be a queen not a king. There have been queens in history. I don't do the whole manipulation of definitions to try to make them gender inclusive. Queen is the female equivalent to king. In the middle age era of European history female leaders were called Queens if the were female sovereigns and/or married to a king. Sometimes if they wanted a little more emphasis they were called Queen Regents, NOT Kings. (Caps for emphasis)
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/queen
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/queen
@Elroy79 in the earlier ages, gender equality didn't exist, so Queens weren't considered equal to the king. King is the highest position, and so, as the strongest of their country, the representatives of Britain, Italy, and Russia were called Kings. Although I don't know why they changed it to Queens in chapter 76.
And of course I know about the word "Queen", you didn't have to bring up the dictionary
And of course I know about the word "Queen", you didn't have to bring up the dictionary
Aggregator gang
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2018
- Messages
- 357
@crackkid, First, let's be clear and honest, gender equality, the way most people think of it, is not a thing. It's a made-up ideology only tentatively feasible in first-world countries. Women and Men are different and have different approaches to things. Sure, rights should be equally distributed and stuff like that, but men and women are different and approach things differently for a variety of reasons due to their base nature, upbringings, etc. None of that is a bad thing. It's what actual, realistic diversity is. Second, roles were and still are a thing in society. To keep this simple and short, men are still expected to let women and children go, escape, be rescued first in dire situations. Men are still expected to defend women, if they don't, they're considered weak, yes, even by women. To deny this is naive. It's innate human nature. Third, a Queen is the equivalent to a King. It is not that a King is the strongest in the land to the detriment of all Queens. I don't know how else to put this or say this. English has words that fit and have fit the roles and functions of female and male equivalents just like other languages have gender in their languages. You are not making a good argument for your case by saying "Do this just because it's better just because I say so. Just because I fell like it. Just because I think King is better than Queen so you should call them Kings, just because." That doesn't make sense.
King is the highest position in the land, yes, for males. And Queen can arguably be subservient to a King if she is the spouse of said King and said King is the inheritor of the ruling lineage of that country. However, Queens have been sole rulers of their lands in earlier ages as well when they were the sole inheritors of the ruling lineage of that country. Therefore, a Queen is the highest position in the land for females. Period. There is no need to call them Kings, just because you have a misunderstanding of their functions and roles and equivalency. For example, Hatsheput, Queen of Egypt was both a wife of a Pharaoh and operated as a Pharaoh herself although female rulers of Egyptwere usually called Queens, Tomyris reigned over Messagetae around mid 500s BC and some say she may even have killed or helped killed Cyrus the Great, then there's Cleopatra, Boudicca, Zenobia, Aminatu the Queen of Zazzau, Makeda the Queen of Sheba/Axum, there's Kandakes of Kush/Meroe/Nubia, one of which may have confronted Alexander the Great, etc. So the list goes on and on of well respected female leaders who were Queens and rulers of their people or nation in ancient times at levels equivalent to male leaders, their peers during their time. If you're going to speak on history, make sure you know it.
The whole gender-inclusive stuff of today wipes away the clear and cut history of females while trying to claim it's speaking for them by being nonsensical. Such irony. Still, Queens were/are a thing equivalent to Kings. The only times they may not hold the equivalent power to a King or male ruler, again is if that king is married to them and is the inheritor of the lineage of rulership in that kingdom. In other words, the heir to the throne. Yes, in ancient times it was often the male first, not the female, but this does not mean we do not have plenty of examples of female rulers that had power equivalent to male rulers in history or even now. Queen Elizabeth comes to mind although the British Monarchy is more of a celebrity thing now.
I brought up the dictionary because you act like a Queen cannot be the highest authority in a land without a King and somehow calling a woman by a male title makes her more important when women already have female titles of equivalent importance. As usual, minimizing something that already exists for females by trying to use something in existence for males as if that's better? It's not.
Today there are gender-neutral titles in countries that do that like President, Prime Minister, etc. But Queen and King are not gender-neutral titles. I don't know how else to put this. A Queen can be equivalent to a King if she is the sole ruler of her sphere of influence. She can even be equivalent to a King if she is a co-regent in marriage or whatever. You're whole argument that the King has to be the defacto strongest person in the land just because it was done in several areas ignores other factors in reality.
King is the highest position in the land, yes, for males. And Queen can arguably be subservient to a King if she is the spouse of said King and said King is the inheritor of the ruling lineage of that country. However, Queens have been sole rulers of their lands in earlier ages as well when they were the sole inheritors of the ruling lineage of that country. Therefore, a Queen is the highest position in the land for females. Period. There is no need to call them Kings, just because you have a misunderstanding of their functions and roles and equivalency. For example, Hatsheput, Queen of Egypt was both a wife of a Pharaoh and operated as a Pharaoh herself although female rulers of Egyptwere usually called Queens, Tomyris reigned over Messagetae around mid 500s BC and some say she may even have killed or helped killed Cyrus the Great, then there's Cleopatra, Boudicca, Zenobia, Aminatu the Queen of Zazzau, Makeda the Queen of Sheba/Axum, there's Kandakes of Kush/Meroe/Nubia, one of which may have confronted Alexander the Great, etc. So the list goes on and on of well respected female leaders who were Queens and rulers of their people or nation in ancient times at levels equivalent to male leaders, their peers during their time. If you're going to speak on history, make sure you know it.
The whole gender-inclusive stuff of today wipes away the clear and cut history of females while trying to claim it's speaking for them by being nonsensical. Such irony. Still, Queens were/are a thing equivalent to Kings. The only times they may not hold the equivalent power to a King or male ruler, again is if that king is married to them and is the inheritor of the lineage of rulership in that kingdom. In other words, the heir to the throne. Yes, in ancient times it was often the male first, not the female, but this does not mean we do not have plenty of examples of female rulers that had power equivalent to male rulers in history or even now. Queen Elizabeth comes to mind although the British Monarchy is more of a celebrity thing now.
I brought up the dictionary because you act like a Queen cannot be the highest authority in a land without a King and somehow calling a woman by a male title makes her more important when women already have female titles of equivalent importance. As usual, minimizing something that already exists for females by trying to use something in existence for males as if that's better? It's not.
Today there are gender-neutral titles in countries that do that like President, Prime Minister, etc. But Queen and King are not gender-neutral titles. I don't know how else to put this. A Queen can be equivalent to a King if she is the sole ruler of her sphere of influence. She can even be equivalent to a King if she is a co-regent in marriage or whatever. You're whole argument that the King has to be the defacto strongest person in the land just because it was done in several areas ignores other factors in reality.
@Elroy79 I did not say what I said because it seemed like it, I did an actual bit of research. But now that I did a bit more, you're right, Queens can be equal to Kings, but only if they gained the title by right. I miscomprehended since I've only knowned about Kings ruling and not Queens. But that doesn't make the manga wrong, though. A Queen Regnant can be called King, the title King does not only go with the male gender. That's why a country ruled by a Queen Regnant is still called a Kingdom.
Anyway, thanks for the knowledge you shared.
Anyway, thanks for the knowledge you shared.
Aggregator gang
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2018
- Messages
- 357
@crackkid, I respect that you went out and researched. We disagree that the manga was wrong. Part of translating is finding the appropriate word, phrase, etc. when translating. I don't know Japanese, but I have translated things like Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Greek, etc. Also part of translating is learning about history and culture to make better translations. Calling the women in this story "kings" would be a mistranslation, or I should say would make it confusing for the English-speaking audience, which is the language the translators are translating Japanese into. I don't know if the Japanese word translated literally to "King" but that may be a mistake on either the original author's side or something to do with the word or phrase. It might be a gender-neutral word in Japanese as some languages have gender-neutral words like "they" are gender-neutral in English or like I said "President" is considered gender-neutral unless you add a modifier to it like "Mr." or "Mrs." then the title is obviously not gender-neutral. But a translator's job is to make the translation make sense for the language they are translating for. Including activism or whatever into translations can confuse people and muck up language and communication.
I just want to stress one final time that with a Queen Regent there's no need to still try to call her a King. The fact a country is still called a kingdom under a Queen Regent has no bearing on her title. A country is called a kingdom due to the etymology of the word "kingdom" which comes from Old English. Yes, the word "king" is part of the word as it also comes from Old English. Just like Queen comes from Old English. I provided the links for your research.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/kingdom
https://www.etymonline.com/word/king?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_1870
https://www.etymonline.com/word/-dom?ref=etymonline_crossreference
https://www.etymonline.com/word/queen - notice that Queen specifically comes from terms that include a focus on the female gender.
Also want to stress, the etymology does not necessarily determine definitions in the current time. Context, meaning, culture, etc. determine those. There's no need to try to make "King" gender-neutral when it comes to the context of rulership. We have female and male titles for them respectively when dealing with a monarchy. If it's not a monarchy then another title that is gender-neutral may suffice if it's allowable within the translation's context.
I just want to stress one final time that with a Queen Regent there's no need to still try to call her a King. The fact a country is still called a kingdom under a Queen Regent has no bearing on her title. A country is called a kingdom due to the etymology of the word "kingdom" which comes from Old English. Yes, the word "king" is part of the word as it also comes from Old English. Just like Queen comes from Old English. I provided the links for your research.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/kingdom
https://www.etymonline.com/word/king?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_1870
https://www.etymonline.com/word/-dom?ref=etymonline_crossreference
https://www.etymonline.com/word/queen - notice that Queen specifically comes from terms that include a focus on the female gender.
Also want to stress, the etymology does not necessarily determine definitions in the current time. Context, meaning, culture, etc. determine those. There's no need to try to make "King" gender-neutral when it comes to the context of rulership. We have female and male titles for them respectively when dealing with a monarchy. If it's not a monarchy then another title that is gender-neutral may suffice if it's allowable within the translation's context.
Similar threads
