Sonna Kazoku nara Sutechaeba? - Vol. 1 Ch. 1

[Oeconomist]

this is a pointless conversation

You fall into performative self-contradiction in your attempt to argue as if reasonable for an unreasonable conclusion.

the wife literally chucked stuff at him in this chapter.

That weaselly argument has already been addressed:

Don't lose track of what has actually been said. The word “violence” was used to translate the remarks of a character who knew nothing of the glass being thrown nor of any other form of violence.

It's not a pseudo-anglicism

No one said that it was. (A pseudo-anglicism is a term that appears to be English but isn't.)

it's an initialism of "domestic violence", and it's allegedly the term that was used in the raws.

And, as we all know, when one language borrows from another, it doesn't always preserve meaning. For example, the scope of “セクハラ” is different from that of “sexual harassment”, and the latter won't always be the best translation of the former. For an example in the opposite direction, the scope of “mangaka” is broader in English than the scope of “マンガ家”, and the latter won't always be the best translation of the former.

 

[Eighty-six]

That weaselly argument has already been addressed:

You're the one arguing that "domestic violence" should be rendered into something else based on what the story depicts, as opposed to what she actually says. Speaking of,

No one said that it was.

It being a pseudo-anglicism or an idiom would be the only reasons to not translate the term as it literally renders. Appealing to what you interpret in the narrative as opposed to what the character says, in this case, already starts causing problems because the protagonist himself immediately gets to wondering if "domestic violence" is the proper term to describe what he's going through (see p.17). The accuracy of the term application is already challenged in-narrative.

In trying to adjust dialogue to better match your perception of the narrative, you're betraying the narrative by altering what people say within it when what they say is unambiguous. And especially with the work having yet to be complete, you're additionally risking creating a translation that compromises not only future narrative consistency, but its themes and motifs as well. It's one thing to do this by accident or by personal inability, but your suggestion is excessively presumptuous.

The characters are allowed to be written by the author to speak imprecisely, and the author is allowed to be wrong.

And, as we all know, when one language borrows from another, it doesn't always preserve meaning.

You actually have to prove that this is such a case if you want to legitimize not translating "DV" as "domestic violence".

 

[Oeconomist]

You're the one arguing that "domestic violence" should be rendered into something else based on what the story depicts

No, I am arguing that a Japanese term (adapted from English) should be rendered as something else based upon what the character was told. You're trying to weasel by ignoring a distinction already explicitly noted.

It being a pseudo-anglicism or an idiom would be the only reasons to not translate the term as it literally renders.

You don't know what “pseudo-anglicism” means. A pseudo-anglicism isn't a borrowing from English with changed meaning. It is a construction that looks like a borrowing (to a non-Anglophone) but is counterfeit.

what the character says

You are sophistically begging the question, and ignoring a central point already made:

as we all know, when one language borrows from another, it doesn't always preserve meaning. For example, the scope of “セクハラ” is different from that of “sexual harassment”, and the latter won't always be the best translation of the former. For an example in the opposite direction, the scope of “mangaka” is broader in English than the scope of “マンガ家”, and the latter won't always be the best translation of the former.

The accuracy of the term application is already challenged in-narrative.

On a mistaken theory that it is not abuse. Trying to introduce a further confusion of objections is further sophistry from you.

what people say

A repetition of your begging of the question.

And especially with the work having yet to be complete, you're additionally risking creating a translation that compromises not only future narrative consistency,

No more than in the trivial way that any translation of an incomplete work carries such a risk. That risk is increased by implausibly positing that the character is confused or dishonest about violence.

your suggestion is excessively presumptuous.

The presumptiveness is yours, in presuming some deficiency on the part of that character and then begging the question about the conceptual content of her words.

The characters are allowed to be written by the author to speak imprecisely, and the author is allowed to be wrong.

Yes, they are. But the presumption of inaccuracy and of error is to be avoided in the absence of actual evidence.

 

[Eighty-six]

You don't know what “pseudo-anglicism” means.

Nothing that I said in what you were responding to suggested that I failed to understand what a pseudo-anglicism was. I linked a definition of the term, and you responded to that link by stating the definition of the term again. Then, you do it again here.

I'm mentioning this now because you already padded your post with name calling. Now you're padding your post with twice-established information.

You are sophistically begging the question

You don't know what "begging the question" is. That aside, I had said this in response to what you quoted yourself saying:

You actually have to prove that this is such a case if you want to legitimize not translating "DV" as "domestic violence".

What you're currently doing is making a series of conjectures ultimately spurred by you thinking that it would be an oversight if the author meant to have this character use "DV" (the initialism for "domestic violence", or ドメスティックバイオレンス) in its prima facie meaning to label what was told to her. To you, the character would be wrong in characterizing what was told to her as "domestic violence" if she in fact meant to call it domestic violence-- so you figure that she must be using another sense of the term not immediately apparent to English speakers, and this needs to be reflected in an English translation.

You haven't offered any evidence that "DV" is a false cognate of English's "DV", or even that they have different levels of broadness-- instead, you've posed dubious assertions about how the Japanese use terms like "sexual harassment" or "mangaka" with a different sense of broadness versus how Americans use the terms, in order to extrapolate that "DV" should be the same way.

Because you have yet to demonstrate that "DV" in Japanese is meant in a different way than "DV" in English, what you're left proposing is a "correction" more concerned with fact (your own correctness notwithstanding) than with a truer representation of what was written. A "correction" that may be incongruous with her character, the narrative, or the themes/motifs of this work in the future. A "correction" that's actually incongruous with this chapter where the protagonist internally disputes her exact verbiage, questioning how severe things have to be before the term would fit.

You're more concerned than I am about whether she, as a character, is accurate in her statements. I'm interested in rendering what she was written to say in the Japanese into its most approximate English equivalent, regardless of whether she's precise about what domestic violence is-- or whether she's supposed to be.

 

[Oeconomist]

Nothing that I said in what you were responding to suggested that I failed to understand what a pseudo-anglicism was.

When you repeatedly use the term, as here

It being a pseudo-anglicism or an idiom would be the only reasons to not translate the term as it literally renders.

while I have previously and repeatedly given a different reason, that very much indicates that you don't see the difference, and hence confuse the meaning of “pseudo-anglicism”.

I linked a definition of the term

No, you didn't. Follow your link:

It's not a pseudo-anglicism

It's not to an entry defining “pseudo-anglicism”. (It isn't even to an entry defining the relevant Japanese term; it's to an entry giving the etymology of “ドメスティックバイオレンス”, which etymology is not under dispute.)

you responded to that link by stating the definition of the term again. Then, you do it again here.

I twice stated what a pseudo-anglicism were because you twice argued confusing a claim about borrowing with one of using pseudo-anglicism. Also, my first assertion about pseudo-anglicism was accurate but imprecise, and not itself a definition.

you're padding your post with twice-established information.

Your memory of that to which you actually linked is just confused; my first assertion was information not previously introduced. My second assertion added precision to head-off some new confusion on your part.

You don't know what "begging the question" is.

No; you don't recognize when you are begging the question, or hope for the audience not to recognize it. Begging the question is insinuating the very thing to be concluded into the assumptions. When you repeatedly refer to what the character said in a way that simply treats saying “ディーブイ” as saying “domestic violence” or saying “ドメスティックバイオレンス” as saying “domestic violence”, you are begging the question.

Having begged that question, you then want to assert that the burden of proof is somehow on those of us who don't presume that the character is foolish or dishonest about violence, as you effectively pretend that she has said “violence” when she has not.

 

[Eighty-six]

It's not to an entry defining “pseudo-anglicism”. (It isn't even to an entry defining the relevant Japanese term; it's to an entry giving the etymology of “ドメスティックバイオレンス”, which etymology is not under dispute.)

"DV" is an initialism of "domestic violence", which is rendered in Japanese as ドメスティックバイオレンス. The point of highlighting the etymology was to point out that it isn't considered a pseudo-anglicism.

That said, I misremembered linking a definition of "pseudo-anglicism" when I made my last response, so that's my fault.

I twice stated what a pseudo-anglicism were because you twice argued confusing a claim about borrowing with one of using pseudo-anglicism.

...no, I didn't. The whole point of mentioning pseudo-anglicisms at all was to give an example of a situation where you would not render a seeming cognate as it reads, but instead refer to what the term actually means for the Japanese. That's also why I mentioned idioms, which can't meaningfully be rendered literally.

When you repeatedly refer to what the character said in a way that simply treats saying “ディーブイ” as saying “domestic violence” or saying “ドメスティックバイオレンス” as saying “domestic violence”, you are begging the question.

It takes nearly zero time to figure out that the Japanese abbreviate ドメスティックバイオレンス, which is their rendering of "domestic violence", as "DV". This is where that Wiktionary link is the most useful.

Having begged that question, you then want to assert that the burden of proof is somehow on those of us who don't presume that the character is foolish or dishonest about violence--

I explicitly stated that I'm not concerned about whatever foolishness or dishonesty she may be exhibiting. Furthermore, her labeling doesn't need to be a product of specifically those two things. They could be the result of any number of things that are not currently apparent to me as a reader.

It's because I can't make that call that it's much safer to render it as is, especially because it isn't a pseudo-anglicism.

 

[Oeconomist]

"DV" is an initialism of "domestic violence", which is rendered in Japanese as ドメスティックバイオレンス. The point of highlighting the etymology was to point out that it isn't considered a pseudo-anglicism.

That said, I misremembered linking a definition of "pseudo-anglicism" when I made my last response, so that's my fault.

A padded way not to go straight to the point that I didn't pad, and not even to acknowledge that point explicitly.

...no, I didn't. The whole point of mentioning pseudo-anglicisms at all was to give an example of a situation where you would not render a seeming cognate as it reads, but instead refer to what the term actually means for the Japanese. That's also why I mentioned idioms, which can't meaningfully be rendered literally.

No, you did, whether deliberately or inadvertantly, when you claimed that the only way not to take her as meaning violence was to treat her as using a pseudo-anglicism.

their rendering of "domestic violence"

Once again,

When you repeatedly refer to what the character said in a way that simply treats saying “ディーブイ” as saying “domestic violence” or saying “ドメスティックバイオレンス” as saying “domestic violence”, you are begging the question.

I explicitly stated that I'm not concerned about whatever foolishness or dishonesty she may be exhibiting.

You explicitly said

The characters are allowed to be written by the author to speak imprecisely, and the author is allowed to be wrong.

You need for the character to say something meaning violence when she knew of no violence.

Furthermore, her labeling doesn't need to be a product of specifically those two things. They could be the result of any number of things that are not currently apparent to me as a reader.

No, not really. The possibilities are just three:

1. She said mistakenly that he'd described violence.
2. She said with deliberate falsity that he'd described violence.
3. She didn't make reference to violence.

It's because I can't make that call that it's much safer to render it as is,

Risk obtains in any translation. A translator needs to reach for the least implausible translation; you favor a translation that involves greater implausibilities.

especially because it isn't a pseudo-anglicism.

No, the issue of pseudo-anglicism arose because you misunderstood the term. The same crazy arguments for referring to non-violence with “violence” would still have been made, because so many people are thoughtless or have axes to grind.

 

[Eighty-six]

No, you did, whether deliberately or inadvertantly, when you claimed that the only way not to take her as meaning violence was to treat her as using a pseudo-anglicism.

...right.

That's not wrong-- "DV" would either have to be a pseudo-anglicism, an idiom, or some other language tool that demands non-literality. What you called "padding" was me explaining my going out of my way to point out a manner wherein your assertion could conceivably be correct.

You need for the character to say something meaning violence when she knew of no violence.

I don't need a damn thing except to know that the character was written to say what she said, first and foremost-- we can then talk about what she meant in that context.

You have two options, given your insistence:

1. Demonstrate that she literally did not say "domestic violence", or
2. Demonstrate that "DV" is not an initialism for what ドメスティックバイオレンス is meant to sound out ("domestic violence"), AND that ドメスティックバイオレンス is not a pseudo-anglicism.

Someone's already pointed out that the raws have her saying "DV", which is an initialism for "domestic violence", which is classified as a loanword and not a pseudo-anglicism.

No, not really. The possibilities are just three:

I've already asserted that what's necessary is to render what the character is saying.

That said, it's glaring that you're not even concerned with the author's intent when you list your conjectures. In addition, there are four chapters translated to English with no indication of how long this is supposed to go on for, or what the author intends to write out-- you CANNOT say with certainty that there are only three possibilities.

As a matter of fact, here's a third possibility (out of an undetermined number): she has a personal philosophy forged from her life experiences that leads her to call what she heard "DV" (she even specifies that it's her view that what she heard was DV).

Still, at least we're on the same page about the reality that a character can be written with an underlying psyche that leads them to not think and/or communicate directly or normally, and that such a possibility should be allowed for.

A translator needs to reach for the least implausible translation; you favor a translation that involves greater implausibilities.

This scanlator's translation is the least implausible because it is what's written. You've only been able to appeal to matters that you're uncertain about in justifying your translation. Furthermore, you're making a colossal presumption that yet-to-be-penned chapters won't further contextualize why she used the term "DV", whatever that context may be.

You were able to generate two possibilities for why she said what she did in the context that she did, without adhering to any of the possibilities you posited. By your own words, you've disqualified yourself from being such an arbiter, because you lack certainty about what must have been meant.

You're unable to attest to any scope difference between "DV" as a term used among the Japanese versus English-speakers, and it would appear that it isn't much different from its usage in English. Still, you try to conjecture about it. Meanwhile, the person who pointed out that the term "DV" was used in the raws gave a UK source asserting that the line between "abuse" and "violence" is blurry, and a US source that says certain legal jurisdictions conflate "abuse" and "violence". This lack of clarity is somewhat congruent with the protagonist himself pondering how bad things need to get for his situation to be properly called "DV"-- he's uncomfortable about that specific term being used to describe his circumstances.

Everything that I argue is based on the text and the definitions (as well as known attested usage) of the words it uses-- you don't even have certainty about the bases of your own argument. Your translation choice would itself probably be inconsequential, but your translation ideology isn't to be regarded.

 

[Oeconomist]

...right.

That's not wrong-- "DV" would either have to be a pseudo-anglicism, an idiom, or some other language tool that demands non-literality.

But you originally said that pseudo-anglicism would be the only alternative to taking the Japanese to mean violence. Now you are acknowledging other alternatives. Before you made your absurd claim about pseudo-anglicism, I was arguing for something quite different. But, because you misunderstood the term “pseudo-anglicism”, you were balling things up.

This scanlator's translation is the least implausible because it is what's written.

Again,

When you repeatedly refer to what the character said in a way that simply treats saying “ディーブイ” as saying “domestic violence” or saying “ドメスティックバイオレンス” as saying “domestic violence”, you are begging the question.

Each time you beg the question in this fashion, I will repeat this point.

Furthermore, you're making a colossal presumption that yet-to-be-penned chapters won't further contextualize why she used the term "DV", whatever that context may be.

As I've already noted, repeatedly,

Risk obtains in any translation. A translator needs to reach for the least implausible translation; you favor a translation that involves greater implausibilities.

You lack certainty about what the motivations of this character are--

Again:

Risk obtains in any translation. A translator needs to reach for the least implausible translation; you favor a translation that involves greater implausibilities.

You want to take the greater risk associated with presuming that she was mistaken or willfully speaking falsely. You absurdly pretend that this route is risk-free.

By your own words, you've disqualified yourself from being such an arbiter, because you lack certainty about what must have been implied.

Nonsense. No one has rational certainty; you absurdly think that you can be certain yet exclude the most plausible scenario, and thus have her say something actively false.

"DV" as a term used among the Japanese versus English-speakers

Once again:

When you repeatedly refer to what the character said in a way that simply treats saying “ディーブイ” as saying “domestic violence” or saying “ドメスティックバイオレンス” as saying “domestic violence”, you are begging the question.

You're unable to attest to any scope difference between "DV" as a term used among the Japanese versus English-speakers, and it would appear that it isn't much different from its usage in English.

These two aren't one. As to the meaning of the Japanese, read this article. The Japanese define “ドメスティックバイオレンス” to include such things as withholding sex.

(I don't bluff, and you shouldn't bluff as if knowing that I'm bluffing. When you give a stupidly illogical argument, I'm going to focus on the stupid illogic, rather than offering an empirical falsification of the conclusion. That doesn't mean that I don't have such a falsification at hand.)

Everything that I argue is based on the text and the definitions (as well as known attested usage) of the words it uses

No, your argument has been based upon a begging of the question in equating a Japanese borrowing with the original English.

you don't even have certainty about the bases of your own argument.

No, I'm quite certain about the bases of my argument. You have a spurious certainty that translating a character as making a false claim when she might be translated as making a true claim entails no risk.

 

[Eighty-six]

But you originally said that pseudo-anglicism would be the only alternative to taking the Japanese to mean violence.

No, I didn't.

This is literally the only thing that matters-- if "DV" was short for a pseudo-anglicism (i.e. ifドメスティックバイオレンス is a Japanese-coined English term that is not used to refer to domestic violence), then it would make sense to not render it as "domestic violence"-- but then, one would render it as its actual meaning as a pseudo-anglicism. If it was an idiom, then it would make sense to take liberties in order to render an approximate English equivalent.

Furthermore, I never misunderstood what a pseudo-anglicism was-- I define it in practical terms in this comment.

Before you made your absurd claim about pseudo-anglicism, I was arguing for something quite different.

I wasn't concerned about what you were arguing about before, in its entirety-- I was concerned with what I elected to respond to, which was the poor cover of "Japanese doesn't translate to English one-to-one" in a situation where a one-to-one translation was possible and accurate.

Each time you beg the question in this fashion, I will repeat this point.

Type it until your fingers fall off.

I appealed to the text of the raws. I appealed to the follow-up that referred to the use of the text in question. I acknowledged what the term "DV" was an initialism for, and I determined it wasn't a pseudo-anglicism in the context of Japanese, but rather a plain loanword. Neither of us have produced any indication that there's a difference in scope between the Japanese use of the term "DV" and the English use.

My conclusion is adequately proven. You're using the name of an informal fallacy as a rhetorical flail. You're even putting words in my mouth, despite having no grounds to do so, what with what I've actually said.

You want to take the greater risk associated with presuming that she was mistake or willfully speaking falsely.

I'm not assuming a single thing in supporting the scanlator's translation of the term. You're assuming that she's supposed to be right, or that there's nothing underlying what she's saying except an intention to state a fact-- this is well beyond the consideration of a translator.

Putting that aside, she herself undermines her claim by-- in the raws-- posing it as a question ("Isn't that DV?", she says). She implicitly acknowledges the potential for her to be wrong by phrasing it as something she's unsure about.

You're exercising a strange kind of charity that obfuscates what characters are saying.

As to the meaning of the Japanese, read this article. The Japanese define “ドメスティックバイオレンス” to include such things as withholding sex.

The item you're referring to isn't cited, and the entire table is allegedly cited from a now defunct website. The most recent non-404 archive appears to be from 2007, and unlike the Wikipedia article that asserts five types of domestic violence, the website itself cites four. Under "sexual violence" (性的暴力), it lists:

• Forced to have sex even though they don't want to
• doesn't cooperate with birth control/shows pornographic videos or pornographic magazines even though they don't want to
• forces them to have an abortion

et cetera.

That's congruent with the English sense of the term, if only by the same (English) Wikipedia.

(I don't bluff, and you shouldn't bluff as if knowing that I'm bluffing. When you give a stupidly illogical argument, I'm going to focus on the stupid illogic, rather than offering an empirical falsification of the conclusion. That doesn't mean that I don't have such a falsification at hand.)

I challenged you at least twice about this matter before you addressed it. You were just able to find this article, and you didn't even verify the given source.

No, your argument has been based upon a begging of the question in equating a Japanese borrowing with the original English.

Because you can normally trust that a loanword means what it meant in the source language, unless it's a pseudo-loanword-- and it demonstrably isn't.

 

[Oeconomist]

I never misunderstood what a pseudo-anglicism was-- I define it in practical terms in this comment.

No, a borrowing with changed meaning is not a pseudo-anglicism. As I said:

A pseudo-anglicism isn't a borrowing from English with changed meaning. It is a construction that looks like a borrowing (to a non-Anglophone) but is counterfeit.

(My felt need to state the actual definition of “pseudo-anglicism”, rather than simply leaving things at what I'd first said, as in the expectation that you'd get this matter confused.)

a situation where a one-to-one translation was possible and accurate

It is unlikely to be accurate in the situation under discussion, whereas “domestic abuse” is guaranteed to be accurate even on the assumption that the character intends more precisely but untruthfully to refer to

Type it until your fingers fall off.

You might be so dull-witted as to retype something that can be copied-and-pasted; I am not.

Neither of us have produced any indication that there's a difference in scope between the Japanese use of the term "DV" and the English use.

read this article.

The item you're referring to isn't cited, and the entire table is allegedly cited from a now defunct website.

Now you're attempting to ooze from

any indication

to a stronger reference. But the essential point is that it is a Japanese source treating “ドメスティックバイオレンスとは” as inclusive of things other than violence. Finding more is trivial: for example, failure to pay living expenses is in the scope presented here and here. Anyone can use a search-engine to find thousands of instances of the Japanese using “ドメスティックバイオレンスとは” to refer to domestic abuse in general and not just to violence.

Under "sexual violence" (性的暴力), it lists:

• Forced to have sex even though they don't want to
• doesn't cooperate with birth control/shows pornographic videos or pornographic magazines even though they don't want to
• forces them to have an abortion

et cetera.

It is sophistry to argue as if, because the scope of “ドメスティックバイオレンスとは” includes domestic violence, it includes no more than that. I've noted two examples of use, across three sources, for non-violent abuse. You're just going to try to power through that.

I challenged you at least twice about this matter before you addressed it.

And, as I said, I focussed on the stupid illogic of the challenge. Invalid reasoning is far worse than misinformation.

You were just able to find this article

No. Anyone can find thousands of examples of broad use of “ドメスティックバイオレンスとは” simply by using any standard search engine and looking for instances of “ドメスティックバイオレンスとは”. You could too, but you just lost yourself in a fallacious equation, and when the fallacy was noted you couldn't bring yourself to acknowledge it.

you didn't even verify the given source.

Unless you want to argue that the article wasn't written by Japanese authors but has since been mysteriously tolerated, I didn't need what you imagine as verification. And, as I've noted, anyone can use a search-engine to find thousands of more instances of the Japanese using “ドメスティックバイオレンスとは” for domestic abuse in general.

you can normally trust that a loanword means what it meant in the source language

You cannot normally trust a loan-term to mean precisely the same thing in a borrowing language as in the source language, but you presumed just such precision, and it blew-up in your face. Now you've been trying to save face by ridiculous means.

 

[MiguelH224]

Tf is up with his wife?? Nah that woman is right, just leave and don't even bother saying anything to them


That is def not a family worth keeping

It's not like he can be called a deadbeat since his wife doesn't even let him interact with his own daughter

 

[Eighty-six]

No, a borrowing with changed meaning is not a pseudo-anglicism.

"Japanese-coined English term"-- what I said in what I quoted-- is a nearly pound-for-pound translation of 和製英語.

You might be so dull-witted as to retype something that can be copied-and-pasted; I am not.

...putting aside the vapidity of such a commitment, you still have to use keystrokes to copy and paste. Do you want to get carpal tunnel before your fingers fall off?

It is unlikely to be accurate in the situation under discussion, whereas “domestic abuse” is guaranteed to be accurate even on the assumption that the character intends more precisely but untruthfully to refer to

No, it isn't, because it's not what's there.

It's glaring that you chose to outright ignore me pointing out that, in the raws, she asks "Isn't that DV?", herself casting doubt on her classification (even this scanlation kind of carries that spirit by having her qualify it as "her view"). Not only are you assuming there are only two possibilities for her supposed inaccuracy, and not only are you glossing over her stating this as a question and not a fact, you're glossing over the fact that what's termed as "domestic violence"-- whether you go to the English or Japanese Wikipedias or their sources-- isn't solely physical violence, because they have multiple categories including "emotional" and "economic".

Now you're attempting to ooze from [...] to a stronger reference.

What you cited didn't come from any cited source, let alone the source that was cited in the article. While I doubt you did, you may as well have added the item in the table yourself-- that's how useless your citation ended up being. You failed to make your point through your citation.

Meanwhile, both Japanese and English definitions of "domestic violence" include things other than physical violence-- which was the point of linking the English article. The English Wikipedia page for "Domestic violence" even reads thus: "Domestic violence is violence or other abuse that occurs in a domestic setting, such as in a marriage or cohabitation."

The definitions and scopes for the term are congruent between the two languages.

"Domestic violence" would have been the proper English translation for what the character said here, regardless of the fact that she was asking a question and not making a statement, and regardless of the relevance of this specific term used in the future.

Finding more is trivial: for example, failure to pay living expenses is in the scope presented here and here.

In the first link, the language is 生活費を渡さない. 生活費 is "living expenses", 渡さない is the plain negative non-past form of 渡す, and the most pertinent meaning of the verb is "to hand over". を, in this case, marks 生活費 as the direct object of 渡さない.

In other words, it's not "failure to pay living expenses", it's "withholding living expenses". This is congruous with the English understanding of "domestic violence" as it pertains to economics, where you control the finances of the other as a means of controlling them. Google Translate, for your second link, even renders the same Japanese as "refusing to pay living expenses"-- it's disappointing that you didn't think to mention that, yourself.

Finding examples for your case won't be "trivial" if you don't even put in the effort to verify your sources and machine translation results. Is this what "not bluffing" looks like? Am I supposed to trust someone who won't tell me when Google Translate renders what he sees as "failure to pay living expenses" in one place as "refusing to pay living expenses" in another?

It is sophistry to argue as if, because the scope of “ドメスティックバイオレンスとは” includes domestic violence, it includes no more than that.

ドメスティックバイオレンス itself means "domestic violence". It is how a Japanese person would say the English term "domestic violence" according to their native syllabary.

As already demonstrated, the way that the Japanese understand domestic violence doesn't differ from how it's understood by English speakers (at least in the "first-world" Anglosphere). At the least, you have yet to demonstrate it does since every example you've given as of now is either not truly from its purported source or is a product of your failure to comprehend/research the Japanese language.

Is this breakdown of understanding caused by you not being able to read the kana? Is that also why you keep including the とは particle as if it's a part of the term?

And, as I said, I focussed on the stupid illogic of the challenge.

You can call it whatever you want, but it was a valid challenge given that it would be one reason to not render "DV" as "domestic violence".

Unless you want to argue--

It's a Wikipedia article-- practically anybody can edit it. Stop self-conveniently deferring to this iteration of the article despite its incongruency with its purported source.

You're supposed to cite the information you write in a Wikipedia article-- they frown upon "original research". In this case, the information in that table is purportedly sourced on a now defunct page that can still be accessed by the Wayback Machine. The archived website did not include "withholding sex" as an example of sexual violence. Furthermore, in the English Wikipedia article, "domestic violence" has the same categories noted in the Japanese article the Japanese Wikipedia page purports to source.

End of.

You cannot normally trust a loan-term to mean precisely the same thing in a borrowing language as in the source language

You even clipped my statement, but you want to accuse me of attempting to "save face" and of having had my "assumption" blow up in my face-- even though I could prove that it was a regular loanword and not wasei-eigo, even though I proved that it was the best translation of "DV", and even though I endeavored to prove that from the beginning.

 

[Oeconomist]

"Japanese-coined English term"-- what I said in what I quoted-- is a nearly pound-for-pound translation of 和製英語.

The fact that a literal translation of “和製英語” is “Made-in-Japan British term” does not somehow mean that a borrowing with changed meaning is a pseudo-anglicism.

...putting aside the vapidity of such a commitment

An appropriate response to your

Type it until your fingers fall off.

you still have to use keystrokes to copy and paste. Do you want to get carpal tunnel before your fingers fall off?

That possibility won't arise unless you beg the question in that same manner so often that you injure yourself And I'm confident that I could automate the response to that begging of the question more effectively than you can automate the begging.

No, it isn't, because it's not what's there.

No, because the scope of “domestic abuse” includes all of domestic violence, use of “domestic abuse” is indeed guaranteed to be accurate. What is not guaranteed — by any translation without perfect knowledge of the intention of the author — is exactitude.

It's glaring that you chose to outright ignore me pointing out that, in the raws, she asks "Isn't that DV?", herself casting doubt on her classification (even this scanlation kind of carries that spirit by having her qualify it as "her view").

No, what glares here is your attempt to confuse this issue. We don't expect the character to regard non-violent domestic abuse as acceptable but violent abuse as unacceptable, and therefore to wonder whether that line has been crossed. It would be perfectly understandable for her to have asked “Isn't that domestic abuse?” or to say “In my view, that is domestic abuse!”

Meanwhile, both Japanese and English definitions of "domestic violence" include things other than physical violence-- which was the point of linking the English article. The English Wikipedia page for "Domestic violence" even reads thus: "Domestic violence is violence or other abuse that occurs in a domestic setting, such as in a marriage or cohabitation."

If all domestic abuse is domestic violence, then you could do no more than to claim that a change were pointless. You've gone far beyond that claim because you understand that the two aren't conterminus in ordinary discourse.

In the first link, the language is 生活費 is "living expenses", 渡さない is the plain negative non-past form of 渡す, and the most pertinent meaning of the verb is "to hand over". を, in this case, marks 生活費 as the direct object of 渡さない.

In other words, it's not "failure to pay living expenses", it's "withholding living expenses". This is congruous with the English understanding of "domestic violence" as it pertains to economics, where you control the finances of the other as a means of controlling them. Google Translate, for your second link, even renders the same Japanese as "refusing to pay living expenses"-- it's disappointing that you didn't think to mention that, yourself.Once again, you confuse accuracy with exactitude. A refusal entails a failure. The point is that the behavior simply isn't violent, even if it is reprehensibly abusive.
Finding examples for your case won't be "trivial" if you don't even put in the effort to verify your sources and machine translation results. Is this what "not bluffing" looks like? Am I supposed to trust someone who won't tell me when Google Translate renders what he sees as "failure to pay living expenses" in one place as "refusing to pay living expenses" in another?You ought actually to confront the point that the survey of Japanese use is more easilu made than you recognized, and that it will show case-after-case of the term being used for abuse that is not violent.
ドメスティックバイオレンス itself means "domestic violence". It is how a Japanese person would say the English term "domestic violence" according to their native syllabary.Once again:

When you repeatedly refer to what the character said in a way that simply treats saying “ディーブイ” as saying “domestic violence” or saying “ドメスティックバイオレンス” as saying “domestic violence”, you are begging the question.

As already demonstrated, the way that the Japanese understand domestic violence doesn't differ from how it's understood by English speakers (at least in the "first-world" Anglosphere).

Again: If all domestic abuse is domestic violence, then you could do no more than to claim that a change were pointless. You've gone far beyond that claim because you understand that the two aren't conterminus in ordinary discourse.

At the least, you have yet to demonstrate it does since every example you've given as of now is either not truly from its purported source or is a product of your failure to comprehend/research the Japanese language.

Nope. I've given you two examples across three sources. You looked to ooze away from the first by an irrelevant complaint about the citations within the cited source. You've looked to escape the remainder by effectively taking the the position that all domestic abuse is, after all, domestic violence. Again: If all domestic abuse is domestic violence, then you could do no more than to claim that a change were pointless. You've gone far beyond that claim because you understand that the two aren't conterminus in ordinary discourse.

why you keep including the とは particle as if it's a part of the term?

I'll confess that it's an artefact of copying-and-pasting without looking carefully at it. (I don't have a ready ability to type characters not on a typical English-language keyboard.)

You can call it whatever you want, but it was a valid challenge given that it would be one reason to not render "DV" as "domestic violence".

No. First, “DV” was not used. Second, you were not arguing against rendering translating to “domestic violence” but for it. Third, the reasoning of the challenge was invalid, based upon a spurious equation. The strings are not the same, and borrowings do not typically have exactly the same meanings as their sources.

It's a Wikipedia article-- practically anybody can edit it. Stop self-conveniently deferring to this iteration of the article despite its incongruency with its purported source.

Well, that's an interesting bit of hypocrisy, given that you cited the Wikitionary (which anyone can edit) before I cited Wikipedia. But I'll agree that Wikipedia (like the Wikitionary) is not impervious to criticism. Indeed, literal conspiracies drive some of the content (of each). If you want to draw upon its history and talk page, and can find evidence of such conspiracy in this case, I might even have to concede that a different source is needed. (I've put convenient links to searches for such sources in my previous comment.)

But your objection about the citations themselves doesn't have any real strength, unless for example you show that links were added after the content went 404. Links expire all the time. If the content of the article excited controversy amongst Japanese editors or users, then the dead links would have been caught.

You even clipped my statement,

Here it is in full:

Because you can normally trust that a loanword means what it meant in the source language, unless it's a pseudo-loanword-- and it demonstrably isn't.

Pseudo-loanwords are not loanwords. The point has repeatedly been made and not contested that the term in question is not a pseud-anglicism. We don't need any further beating of that dead horse. The question is one of loanwords, so all that I needed to address was your claim

you can normally trust that a loanword means what it meant in the source language

So I clipped it and replied to it.

You even clipped my statement, but you want to accuse me of attempting to "save face" and of having had my "assumption" blow up in my face-- even though I could prove that it was a regular loanword and not wasei-eigo, even though I proved that it was the best translation of "DV", and even though I endeavored to prove that from the beginning.

You're still begging the question by treating the string “ディーブイ” as the string “DV”, the string “ドメスティックバイオレンス” as the string “domestic violence”. The fact that the Japanese terms are not pseudo-anglicism does not show that they have the same meaning as the English upon which they draw; you keep getting lost at or around this point, and your objection to my clipping-away the irrelevant discussion about pseudo-anglicisms (or other pseudo-loanwords is an artefact of your being lost. While, in one sense, it may be said “you can normally trust that a[n actual] loanword means what it means in the source language”, you cannot normally trust a loan-term to have exactly the same scope in the borrowing language as in the source language.

When the intention might fall within the scope of the term in the borrowing language but outside the scope of the term in the source language, one has to weigh various things, such as whether the character is more likely to say something correct or something incorrect.

 

[Eighty-six]

The fact that a literal translation of “和製英語” is “Made-in-Japan British term” does not somehow mean that a borrowing with changed meaning is a pseudo-anglicism.

What I quoted had me saying "Japanese-coined English term", and then describing how ドメスティックバイオレンス would be a wasei-eigo if it were. Also, why did you re-render it as "Made-in-Japan British term"? That's not what that means. 英語 doesn't mean "British", it means "English".

That possibility won't arise unless you beg the question in that same manner so often that you injure yourself

That I injure myself? You're confused-- I haven't ever begged the question, and I'm not the one daring to repeat myself for as many times as I confabulate an occurrence of something that isn't truly happening.

No. First, “DV” was not used.

She used "DV". Someone already proved this. This is my second time linking that post. I think you're losing track of details.

Second, you were not arguing against rendering translating to “domestic violence” but for it.

...yes, I was. The point of me mentioning that "DV" wasn't a pseudo-anglicism was in response to you making a handwave about how Japanese doesn't translate one-to-one. So I discussed circumstances where it wouldn't translate one-to-one and pointed out that "DV" and what it stood for didn't fit those circumstances.

We don't expect the character to regard non-violent domestic abuse as acceptable but violent abuse as unacceptable, and therefore to wonder whether that line has been crossed.

But he doesn't do that. He doesn't wonder about violent versus non-violent abuse-- he wonders if what he's experiencing is domestic violence at all instead of just how his household does things.

If all domestic abuse is domestic violence, then you could do no more than to claim that a change were pointless.

I've already addressed this:

Your translation choice would itself probably be inconsequential, but your translation ideology isn't to be regarded.

Your contention has been that an initialism for domestic violence should be rendered as "domestic abuse" because what the woman was told didn't involve "violence", and her calling it "violence" despite that would mean-- for you-- that she's either ignorant or dishonest. No other possibility. You'd rather render "DV" as "domestic abuse" rather than its direct translation "domestic violence".

However, you engage with characters and narrative improperly in a way that's beyond the scope of a translator in order to come to this decision. You don't acknowledge that she's asking a question-- even in this scanlation, which loses that sense, she still qualifies her determination as her opinion. Even more, you don't acknowledge that "domestic violence" as defined covers matters other than physical violence by definition, and you steadfastly appeal to a "different sense" of the term you have yet to succeed in proving. Therefore, your translation ideology shouldn't be regarded.

Once again, you confuse accuracy with exactitude. A refusal entails a failure.

It entails a deliberate failure. The abuser isn't refusing to withhold living expenses because he's broke or he's negligent, he's intentionally doing it-- presumably to coerce the other party or just to inflict suffering on them.

The Japanese have a term for "failure" and yet this source uses a negation for a verb meaning to "hand over". Please don't play these word games if you aren't able to research the Japanese you cite.

You ought actually to confront the point that the survey of Japanese use is more easilu made than you recognized, and that it will show case-after-case of the term being used for abuse that is not violent.

Which is congruent with the English use of the term.

My point is that you aren't equipped to make that survey-- you even bungled the survey you elected to do.

Nope. I've given you two examples across three sources. You looked to ooze away from the first by an irrelevant complaint about the citations within the cited source. You've looked to escape the remainder by effectively taking the the position that all domestic abuse is, after all, domestic violence.

As I discuss later, it doesn't appear that you even understand my discussion about the citation, in the case of your first example. My objections to your second example are:

1. you can't read Japanese in any capacity to verify your machine translation results (something I had to do), and
2. you weren't even forthwith about the same phrase being translated differently across your latter two sources, instead choosing what was most convenient for you

So, it has yet to be demonstrated that the Japanese conception of domestic violence is substantially different-- if at all-- than the "first world" Anglosphere English conception. This is actually important, because your claim has been that "domestic abuse" should be used instead of "domestic violence" because she was never told anything about violence, and the Japanese probably have a different sense of "DV" (they almost certainly don't).

Well, that's an interesting bit of hypocrisy, given that you cited the Wikitionary (which anyone can edit) before I cited Wikipedia.

If you wanted to challenge the contents of the Wiktionary pages I cited, you were free to do so (and I would have just pulled results from a dictionary like Jisho). You instead accepted them.

Neither of us are obligated to accept websites at face value without investigating their claims, and I opted to investigate a suspicious claim that you sourced from your Wikipedia page by viewing the citation it supposedly drew from, only to find out that it didn't exist there. It purported to get its information from a place where that information never existed.

But your objection about the citations themselves doesn't have any real strength, unless for example you show that links were added after the content went 404. Links expire all the time.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

The most recent archive for that dead link did not have "withholding sex" as an example of sexual violence. The Wikipedia article did. The Wikipedia article did not get that information from the link, even though it cites the link as a source for the table.

Pseudo-loanwords are not loanwords.

...yes, that's what I said. What do you think is me distinguishing between "loanwords" and "pseudo-loanwords" while only casting the former as the kind that you can trust carries the meaning of what it meant in its source language?

You clipped away context to go on a mini-tirade for nothing.

You're still begging the question by treating the string “ディーブイ” as the string “DV”, the string “ドメスティックバイオレンス” as the string “domestic violence”. The fact that the Japanese terms are not pseudo-anglicism does not show that they have the same meaning as the English upon which they draw

I've already demonstrated that the English and Japanese definitions of "domestic violence" are congruent.

When the intention might fall within the scope of the term in the borrowing language but outside the scope of the term in the source language, one has to weigh various things, such as whether the character is more likely to say something correct or something incorrect.

This is the first chapter. At this point, we don't even know the woman's name, let alone her psychology. And she asked a question about whether what she was told was "DV"-- that's not a statement of fact. Even in this scanlation, she's pitching an opinion.

 

[Oeconomist]

What I quoted had me saying "Japanese-coined English term", and then describing how ドメスティックバイオレンス would be a wasei-eigo if it were.

Which is still belabouring the undisputed point that “ドメスティックバイオレンス” is not a pseudo-anglicism.

Also, why did you re-render it as "Made-in-Japan British term"? That's not what that means. 英語 doesn't mean "British", it means "English".

Because you were dissecting the expression, not treating it or even just “英語” as one word, as you suddenly are now. I just chopped-it up a bit further, exhibiting the pointlessness of the dissection.

That I injure myself?

Yes. Your entering the characters with which you beg the question takes key-strokes, even if you don't recognize that your are begging the question with those keystrokes. So your theory that I am going to injure myself (carpal tunnel or worse) in responding every time to those keystrokes implies that you injure yourself.

She used "DV".

I concede that point. It is not essential, but I was none-the-less in error.

It entails a deliberate failure.

Which is irrelevant to the point that it is not an act of violence. We are not arguing over whether “ドメスティックバイオレンス” entails deliberateness; we are arguing over whether it entails violence. (Indeed, as a technical matter, violence isn't always deliberate, though ドメスティックバイオレンス certainly involves deliberateness.)

The Japanese have a term for "failure" and yet this source uses a negation for a verb meaning to "hand over". Please don't play these word games if you aren't able to research the Japanese you cite.

That Japanese distinguishes a refusal to hand over from failures of other sorts does not mean that a deliberate failure is somehow not a failure.

Which is congruent with the English use of the term.

What is disputed is exactly that claim, and your bald repetition of it is yet another example of your begging the question.

My point is that you aren't equipped to make that survey-- you even bungled the survey you elected to do.

No, you've thrown-out a variety of objections, at least one of which was hypocritical and all of which are attempts at distraction.

you weren't even forthwith about the same phrase being translated differently across your latter two sources, instead choosing what was most convenient for you

Again, you're trying to argue that a deliberate failure is somehow not a failure, because the Japanese would use one word for one class of failures and a different expression for other failures.

So, it has yet to be demonstrated that the Japanese conception of domestic violence is substantially different-- if at all-- than the "first world" Anglosphere English conception.

No, you've simply chosen bizarre distractions concerning the examples that I presented.

If you wanted to challenge the contents of the Wiktionary pages I cited, you were free to do so (and I would have just pulled results from a dictionary like Jisho). You instead accepted them.

Yes, but that doesn't make it any less hypocritical for you to reject one on a basis that should, if accepted, have caused you not to previously cite the other.

Neither of us are obligated to accept websites at face value without investigating their claims, and I opted to investigate a suspicious claim that you sourced from your Wikipedia page by viewing the citation it supposedly drew from, only to find out that it didn't exist there. It purported to get its information from a place where that information never existed.

But I've already explained

your objection about the citations themselves doesn't have any real strength, unless for example you show that links were added after the content went 404. Links expire all the time. If the content of the article excited controversy amongst Japanese editors or users, then the dead links would have been caught.

We're not arguing over whether that article was well researched. We're arguing over whether what amounts to the most-visited page on “ドメスティックバイオレンス” written by Japanese authors gives a representative definition.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Dead links in Wikipedia articles are not usually sinister. You'd have evidence that they were sinister if you could show that the cited pages were already 404 when the citation was made.

The most recent archive for that dead link did not have "withholding sex" as an example of sexual violence. The Wikipedia article did. The Wikipedia article did not get that information from the link, even though it cites the link as a source for the table.

That conclusion follows only on the assumption that the content at the cited page was the same at the time of citation as it was at the last time of archiving.

...yes, that's what I said.

No, but no one should needed to have said it, as it follows ex definitione. The problem is that you objected to my extracting only the discussion of loanwords, as if it were somehow dishonest of me not to quote the irrelevant discussion of the undisputed features of pseudo-loanwords. So I had to state the tautology.

What do you think is me distinguishing between "loanwords" and "pseudo-loanwords" while only casting the former as the kind that you can trust carries the meaning of what it meant in its source language?

I've not said that you've done that, though you've come rather too close to doing it.

You clipped away context to go on a mini-tirade for nothing.

No, I clipped-away content that was irrelevant, to discuss loanwords and not pseudo-loanwords, and you treated that focus on the irrelevant as an evasion.

I've already demonstrated that the English and Japanese definitions of "domestic violence" are congruent.

No, you haven't. Worse, the key source that you attempted to use in that demonstration cannot be admitted under your objection

It's a Wikipedia article-- practically anybody can edit it.

in-so-far as the Wiktionary is more-of-the-same.

This is the first chapter. At this point, we don't even know the woman's name, let alone her psychology. And she asked a question about whether what she was told was "DV"-- that's not a statement of fact. Even in this scanlation, she's pitching an opinion.

Yes to all of that. But the question is of which opinion she is pitching. Even were she doing less, and just pitching a suggestion, the question would be of which suggestion she were pitching.

 

[Eighty-six]

Because you were dissecting the expression, not treating it or even just “英語” as one word, as you suddenly are now. I just chopped-it up a bit further, exhibiting the pointlessness of the dissection.

You didn't chop anything up, you just read it wrong for no reason. I didn't dissect anything, that's literally what it means. There wasn't any point to what you said. It even fails as snark.

Yes. Your entering the characters with which you beg the question--

But I'm not. You just want to keep claiming that I am.

Which is irrelevant to the point that it is not an act of violence.

And that's irrelevant to the fact that both the Japanese and English definitions categorize such an activity under the term "domestic violence".

If you have a problem with that, you can take it up with all relevant societies.

Again, you're trying to argue that a deliberate failure is somehow not a failure, because the Japanese would use one word for one class of failures and a different expression for other failures.

Sincerely, you don't know enough Japanese to have this conversation or play the word games you're trying to play. You didn't even correctly recapitulate what I said.

We are not arguing over whether “ドメスティックバイオレンス” entails deliberateness; we are arguing over whether it entails violence.

You're confused. I brought up deliberateness in discussing specifically 生活費を渡さない, because you insist on clinging to an inaccurate machine translation-- one that you chose over the other machine translation that's closer to the actual meaning, that actually rendered it as "refusing to pay living expenses" (compare with my interpretation of "not handing over living expenses", or "withholding living expenses").

Even though you couldn't tell which one was the better translation, you actively chose the one that was more suitable to your aims instead of acknowledging that the machine translation gave contradictory results for the same phrase in different places, presumably expecting me to not know at least enough Japanese to make heads or tails of what's what.

You insist on "failure to pay living expenses" because with that translation, you can muddy the deliberate, coercive, and torturous aspects of the example action at hand and conflate it with things like someone being unable to pay living expenses (e.g. on account of not having the money in the first place). That would distinguish it from at least the "first world" English speaker's concept of economic abuse (still a subtype of DV in both languages).

What is disputed is exactly that claim, and your bald repetition of it is yet another example of your begging the question.

You truly do not know what "begging the question" is.

Multiple times, I've successfully demonstrated the congruency of the two definitions of "domestic violence" between the Japanese and English conceptions. In contrast, you've consistently failed to demonstrate any substantial differences between the two, because your examples are either ultimately un-sourced despite purporting a source, or are not what you say they they are. The latter is not only the result of you having no understanding of Japanese to even remotely correctly interpret the sources you invoke, but also the result of you choosing convenient machine translations despite obvious ambiguities between different translations of the same term.

Yes, but that doesn't make it any less hypocritical for you to reject one on a basis that should, if accepted, have caused you not to previously cite the other.

What are you talking about?

The substance of a Wikipedia page isn't in its content, because Wikipedia articles-- as a rule-- aren't to include "original research". Accordingly, the substance of a Wikipedia page is in its citations that are the source of its content. The problem with the Wikipedia page you cited is that the only source it provides for the content you cited from it does not have the specific content you invoked.

Despite the lack of citation, you would prefer for that content to have value unto itself because it serves your point that the conceptions of domestic violence differ greatly between the "first world" Anglosphere and Japan, but if the item doesn't exist in the cited source, then the item in the Wikipedia page has no substance of its own. Furthermore, the citations you brought up for your case about economic abuse are overall general descriptions of domestic violence and its types/categories, and yet neither of them have "withholding sex" as an item.

That said, because you chose to defer to Wikipedia for a definition of domestic violence, it's proper that I compare the same article in different languages there as a quick way to determine congruency or lack thereof across languages/cultures. As already stated, the objection isn't about your use of Wikipedia, but that what you cited from Wikipedia doesn't exist in the purported source of that item (and, probably, at all); yet, you want to use the item despite it being unsourced because it's convenient for your argument.

Dead links in Wikipedia articles are not usually sinister. You'd have evidence that they were sinister if you could show that the cited pages were already 404 when the citation was made.

I never made the argument that the dead link was "sinister". I linked to an archive of the dead link in order to demonstrate that "withholding sex" is not there, despite the table in the Wikipedia article citing that now-dead link as a source. In other words, the Wikipedia page never got "withholding sex" from that the linked article-- whether from an archive or when the link was still live.

That conclusion follows only on the assumption that the content at the cited page was the same at the time of citation as it was at the last time of archiving.

You have zero evidence for what you're conjecturing about, so I couldn't care less.

The problem is that you objected to my extracting only the discussion of loanwords, as if it were somehow dishonest of me not to quote the irrelevant discussion of the undisputed features of pseudo-loanwords.

Because you wanted to tear into me about equating loanwords and pseudo-loanwords, despite me not doing that. It was dishonest.

But the question is of which opinion she is pitching. Even were she doing less, and just pitching a suggestion, the question would be of which suggestion she were pitching.

She's asking "Isn't that DV?" in the raws. That isn't a debate, but I can dissect that much for you if you still don't understand.

Contrary to your prior concerns, she's at no point stating a fact. She is asking a question. In this scanlation, it was changed to her making a statement of opinion. There's zero "danger" of inadvertently painting her as misinformed or dishonest, in rendering her as using the term "domestic violence"-- not that there necessarily was, even if she stated it as a fact (because she'd be arguably right, by definition-- Japanese or English).

 

[Oeconomist]

You didn't chop anything up, you just read it wrong for no reason. I didn't dissect anything, that's literally what it means. There wasn't any point to what you said. It even fails as snark.

Whether we are talking about one language or multiple languages, most expressions represent a complex of concepts, which complex can be analyzed (chopped-up) in multiple ways. You selectively lose sight of that, pretending that if one analysis is literally what something means, then another is not.

And that's irrelevant to the fact that both the Japanese and English definitions categorize such an activity under the term "domestic violence".

And there, again, you are begging the question. Both languages use the string of characters “DV”, which is not the string of characters “domestic violence” and is not at all a sequence of phonemes. The strings of characters and the strings of phonemes are not the same term. A loan word is not generally the same term as the original.

Sincerely, you don't know enough Japanese to have this conversation or play the word games you're trying to play. You didn't even correctly recapitulate what I said.

Here, no, this argument about the concept for which the word “failure” stands turns upon your pretense that I could not properly use this English word to refer to a deliberate withholding.

you insist on clinging to an inaccurate machine translation

I did not draw the word “failure” from a machine translation.

You insist on "failure to pay living expenses" because with that translation, you can muddy the deliberate, coercive, and torturous aspects of the example action at hand and conflate it with things like someone being unable to pay living expenses (e.g. on account of not having the money in the first place).

The person here trying to muddy the waters is you. The point that whether and how much a victim suffers is not the determinant of whether violence was used was long ago made. Omissions are simply not commissions, and not all commissions are violent.

Wikipedia articles-- as a rule-- aren't to include "original research".

True enough, though not essential to every proper use of Wikipedia.

Accordingly, the substance of a Wikipedia page is in its citations that are the source of its content.

That's either simply false or put too loosely to be understood.

The problem with the Wikipedia page you cited is that the only source it provides for the content you cited from it does not have the specific content you invoked.

But, as per Wikipedia policy, the presumption is that before the links went dead they did have that content.

In any case, returning to a point that I have repeatedly made: The Japanese page that I cited is one of the most heavily visited by native Japanese speakers wishing to read about “ドメスティックバイオレンス”. The reason that it wasn't challenged shortly after those links went dead (and, if your conjecture is correct that the links were never proper support) was that the content of the article conforms to the understand of most or all of those visitors.

I never made the argument that the dead link was "sinister".

If multiple spurious links (as opposed to once appropriate links) appeared in the article, that would indeed be sinister.

You have zero evidence for what you're conjecturing about,

No. The evidence that your argument hangs upon an assumption is found in inspecting your argument.

so I couldn't care less.

No one is trying to get you to care.

you wanted to tear into me about equating loanwords and pseudo-loanwords

That's either delusion or a lie. Every time that the subject of pseudo-loanwords has been raised, it has been raised by you, and every time that you have raised it, I have noted its irrelevancy.

Contrary to your prior concerns, she's at no point stating a fact.

That's not contrary to my concerns, prior or otherwise.

There's zero "danger" of inadvertently painting her as misinformed or dishonest,

Wrong. Even if, instead of asking “Isn't that X?” she asks “Is that X?” If we use the wrong X, then we run the risk of depicting her as misinformed or dishonest. Only if something is, from the perspective of an honest and informed person otherwise in her position, plausibly X is there no such risk.

 

[Eighty-six]

And there, again, you are begging the question. Both languages use the string of characters “DV”, which is not the string of characters “domestic violence” and is not at all a sequence of phonemes. The strings of characters and the strings of phonemes are not the same term.

I have zero interest in your continued sophistry, especially when you've demonstrated that you lack any means to reliably validate the contents of Japanese resources.

 

[Oeconomist]

I have zero interest in your continued sophistry.

Especially when you've demonstrated that you lack any means to reliably validate the contents of Japanese resources.

I invite anyone who reads this comment to review the full thread, to see who was both sophistic and confused.