Kunizuka's part
Kozuki's part (1)
Kozuki's part (2)
sora-namari:
xnightrainx:
sora-namari:
xnightrainx:
sora-namari:
xnightrainx:
sora-namari:
xnightrainx:
Posting this due to 1) my reply to an ask here and 2) the question raised by midnight-in-town‘s post regarding Enforcers and marriage to clear up the confusion (as my previous reply post has too many ETAs. x.x;; ).
Also my apology for the repost as a part of this changes its meaning in translation with the following cause in another page.
All 3 pics come from Psycho-Pass Novel Vol.2. (Special thx: irregulars-daradara taiki-taiki)
Pic#1 - Kunizuka’s part
Keyword: しかし、潜在犯には普通の結婚は許されない。
Latent criminals aren’t allowed ordinary marriage.
Pic#2 - Kozuki’s part
Keyword: 潜在犯に恋愛が禁止されているわけではないが、結婚に関しては厳しい制限があり、上手くいった例は少ない。執行官は特にそうだ。
Latent criminals aren’t forbidden to love. But as there are many restrictions for their marriage, it’s hardly a happy one, especially for the Enforcers.
Additional info from the pages:
There’s no rule forbidding sexual intercourse.
Speculation: One of the restrictions might include having children.
Kunizuka thought going home after their hues become less cloudy and having a family was unthinkable.
Speculation: A marriage between an Enforcer and an Inspector could possibly be a different case as Enforcers aren’t restricted to the therapy wards and they still meet at the workplace.
Note:
It is not required that every couple has to follow Sibyl’s recommendation regarding their marriage. But people believe that consulting Sibyl will give the most compatible result (as demonstrated by the case of Akane’s friend in the movie).
The marriage issue hasn’t been completely clarified yet, so all we
can do is pick every piece of information, from all the sources at our
disposal, and reach a conclusion a at certain point.
As for Kouzuki’s part, xnightrainx-san, I’ve posted a translation
of this scene before thus I am curious as to why you translated this
phrase the way you did. I mean this part 上手くいった例は少ない clearly states that
there were precedents that didn’t go well, no? There are no ambiguous
aspects about the grammar so the meaning is pretty much transparent.
It’s said 上手くいった例 so then it’s a fact that there were cases of such
marriages but as they were obviously unhappy ones, they most likely
wouldn’t be approved of ever again nor would it be reasonable to forbid
them because, well, what’s the point? Technically, marriage may be a way
for an Enforcer to rehab. lol. XD So it’s a pretty convenient way to
handle this: marriage is not officially forbidden and yet it’s unlikely
for a couple to get the authorization due to those “precedents”. And
then Yayoi’s words about the marriage between latent criminals not being
allowed make much more sense.
Furthermore, in the 100
Q&A section in the 2nd profiling book, when asked if marriage was
impossible for latent criminals, they said it was possible.
And that’s that. I believe it just goes to prove that your second
speculation might actually be true. Or. at least, it’s safe to say the
marriage between Enforcers is possible.
I agree that the issue of marriage is not conclusive as there is not much information saved for the tiny bits dropped here and there to gather from. However, it’s quite clear that marriage is a possible thing for latent criminals. What is missing, though, is the detail on the restrictions, so we can only speculate about what is allowed and what is not.
First, for the translation, I always declare on my translation posts that the translations on my blog are not direct translations of Japanese-English as the communication among my friends (who initially do the translations from Japanese) and I is in our native language, which is Thai. So the meaning might be lost in translation.
Perhaps it’s my mistake that I didn’t put a declaration on this post as my original intention was to clarify the confusion due to the many edits in my previous post. From your reply, it seems that you might also be referring to my earlier posts, so here are my clarifications:
I mean this part 上手くいった例は少ない clearly states that there were precedents that didn’t go well, no?
The anon in this post (x) questioned about the specific regulations for Inspector-Enforcer marriage. My reply was “There has yet to be a known case of Inspector-Enforcer marriage in the series either,” by a “known case,” here I actually meant a case, most likely with expanded scenes or writing, which demonstrates the aforementioned specific regulations in detail. I didn’t deny the possibility that there were previous cases as by translating it as “it’s hardly a happy one,” I take it that the existence of previous cases can also be inferred from the text.
marriage is not officially forbidden and yet it’s unlikely for a couple to get the authorization due to those “precedents”. And then Yayoi’s words about the marriage between latent criminals not being allowed make much more sense.
If you mean previous cases of unsuccessful marriage and unhappiness by the “precedents,” I think that has less to do with the authorisation as the couple still has a choice to take risk (but of course, under specific conditions). Thus, saying that marriage is forbidden for latent criminals could be a little bit exaggerating.
Yayoi’s words, on the other hand, seems more to me that she was referring to the fact that in actuality, the latent criminals in the rehabilitation centre have little to none opportunity of recovering their hues to normal level.
I believe it just goes to prove that your second speculation might actually be true. Or. at least, it’s safe to say the marriage between Enforcers is possible.
Actually, my second speculation refers to possible consideration factors for the green light. Additionally, if just the marriage between Enforcers were the only allowable choice, wouldn’t it be easier to say that a couple of Enforcers can marry each other with certain limitations?
P.S. I am inclined to think that the nature of relationship between Kozuki and Aoyanagi is not definite in the text either, therefore this is up to interpretation and preference.
P.S.S. Thank you very much for the links to your translations. They are helpful.
At least this part is officially confirmed,
but you know how inconsistent PP sometimes gets. No wonder if in their next
novel they’ll declare how the marriage between latent criminals is forbidden.
Yeah, I am aware it’s usually your friend
who does the translations from the source language but since there was a quote
from the novel directly, I just thought it might be you for some reason. :D But
it doesn’t matter though. :3
Not really.
I’m not. What caught my attention was what seemed to be a mistake in the
translation as the grammar and the meaning of what it turned out to be in the
target language didn’t match what it originally was in the source
language. The original says “there are severe restrictions, there are a
few cases” while your interpretation says “as there are restrictions,
it can hardly be a happy marriage, especially for Enforcers”. It’s not the
same thing. I just thought I’d let you know as people who don’t speak
Japanese get misled easily, let alone those who do. They might read only the
part in quotes, and skip everything else, and the part in quotes isn’t quite correct, that’s all.
I didn’t see the ask, sorry. But still,
this part doesn’t say anything about the Inspector-Enforcer marriage, but the
anon apparently didn’t’ know that. Basically, it’s possible for Enforcers to
get married, but we don’t know the details. But anyways, it was clear that you didn’t deny
it. However, on a side note, I wouldn’t agree that one could easily deduct that from the text.
Imposing restrictions on marriage doesn’t necessary mean that there were cases
before. On the contrary, as we have no idea about the nature of those
restrictions, they might be quite discouraging, resulting in no precedents at
all. But as the text says otherwise, the cases obviously took place.
Indeed. But the fact that such marriages
are not forbidden is by no means equal to them being allowed, right? Yes,
marriage is not forbidden. According to Yayoi, only ordinary marriage is forbidden.
Moreover, even if it is allowed, it doesn’t mean latent criminals would still
do it. You are absolutely right about that, they have the choice to, but if the
author/Kouzuki speaks about the examples that turned out to be failures in the
end, then most likely no one is eager to take such risk, knowing what it might
result in. And we don’t even know how grave the outcome of those cases might
have been.
Additionally, it’s not groundless to
consider that by 例 they might be referring not to those particular cases of the marriage between Enforcers, but to the
marriage license applications. It’s entirely plausible that, due to the restrictions, it’s
almost impossible to get the approval and that’s why people view this
possibility as something that, even if theoretically, officially not forbidden,
is actually not allowed because the application almost certainly will be
declined. Of course, I’m just assuming things here but still….
You have a
point. It would. But don’t expect stuff to be that logical and straight. XDD
P.S. That
seems to be the case. But the nature of their relationship is actually definite due to Risa’s position.
If Risa has no romantic feelings for Kouzuki, and she hasn’t, then there’s
nothing but friendship to them. What is not definite is Kouzuki’s situation… but we will probably never know.T_T
P.P.S.
Thank you. >3 You are welcome, Hiyuura-san.
For ease of clarification, I’d rather separate these three points: 1) the translations, and 2) the issue of marriage and consequently 3) the relationship between Aoyanagi and Kozuki:
1) The translations
First, when it comes to translation theory, literal translation can only be understood if the general grammatical form of the two languages are similar (Larson, 1984). Thus, I find it a little far-fetched to relate a meaning-based translation to the issue of grammatical matching. Even less so, if such translation is not a direct translation of Japanese-English. I, however, admit my mistake on the loss of meaning due to my word choice for “hardly” instead of “very few cases”.
It is absolutely true on your part that I could have been too fast to conclude that the case of precedents could easily be inferred from my original translation. Still, as a matter of fact, I find the difference between these two sentences quite minor:
As there are many restrictions for their marriage, it’s hardly a happy one, especially for the Enforcers. (My original post)
As there are many restrictions for their marriage, there are very few cases that are happy, especially for Enforcers. (Updated version)
To get this straight, the point of the original post was to answer on the “possibility” of a marriage between an Enforcer and an Inspector whose exact case, while not directly mentioned in the novel, could be assumed the possibility from the given information regarding latent criminals and marriage. And while the restrictions for such marriage (as asked by the anon) aren’t officially mentioned, I believe my reply as a “yes” was quite to the point rather than misleading.
2) The issue of marriage
I, on the other hand, am curious as to why you are so adamant on such marriages being forbidden.
As far as official information goes, all is consistent on the fact that these marriages are “possible”. Just because people who fall within the case may be discouraged from the decision doesn’t mean it is forbidden by the laws as long as certain conditions are satisfied.
Ordinary marriage is not allowed + Marriage with restrictions is possible = Marriage is not entirely forbidden
As 例 means case study or example, it is more likely to refer to the actual cases instead of the marriage license applications as denoted by the phrase “very few cases that are happy”. For a couple to be or not to be “happy” due to such marriage, it would have more to do with the nature of the marriage itself rather than the allowance of the marriage license applications. Not to mention, as you have pointed out yourself, the existence of the precedents.
To say that the application will certainly be declined, therefore, is more a speculation rather than facts presented in the official text.
3) The relationship between Aoyanagi and Kozuki
As I already said, the nature of their relationship is not definite, and I’d rather this be up to people’s preferences and speculations whether Aoyanagi and Kozuki had feelings for each other or what was it that they exactly felt. However, that didn’t change the fact that those two were dating as specified in this part:
執行官にとって最も不毛で最も神経を摩耗する行為ーーー監視官との恋愛。
The word here is 恋愛 which indicates how the relationship are mutual. The Japanese-Japanese dictionary here defines the word as following:
特定の異性に特別の愛情を感じて恋い慕うこと。また、男女が互いにそのような感情をもつこと。「熱烈に―する」「社内―」
The feeling of yearning and love for the opposite sex. Both the male and female posses mutual feelings for each other.
taiki-taiki has also checked with the following Japanese-Japanese dictionaries and there is no source specifying that the relationship could also be one-sided.
https://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%81%8B%E6%84%9B-662001
http://id.fnshr.info/2013/04/07/what-is-love/
http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E6%81%8B%E6%84%9B
http://www.sanseido.net/User/Dic/Index.aspx?TWords=%E6%81%8B%E6%84%9B&st=0&DORDER=&DailyJJ=checkbox&DailyEJ=checkbox&DailyJE=checkbox
http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E6%81%8B%E6%84%9B&match=beginswith&itemid=DJR_rennai_-010
http://dictionary.j-cat.org/JtoE/index.php?typedword=%E6%81%8B%E6%84%9B
https://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%81%8B%E6%84%9B
Most of these dictionaries use the word 互いに which clearly denotes the mutuality, which is also in congruence with the meaning as defined by this Casio Talking Dict version:
Therefore, while the nature of the relationship is up to preferences and speculations, it can safely be said that the status of the relationship at least went both ways.
P.S. While it is necessary to separate facts from speculations, when it comes to personal interpretation, trust me, straightforwardness is not my style.
I’m sorry
for the belated reply. I’ve been under the weather the whole week. It’s so hot
here that I’m exhausted by the end of the day, unable to get myself together. Thankfully I’m on vacation now so I’m good :C. Now then…
1)
I completely agree with you on this point. However it’s either you
misunderstood what I was trying to say or I was not clear enough saying
it. By so-called grammatical matching I
meant the possibility of literal translation of that particular sentence in
terms of both grammar and meaning. I imagine that we may prioritize different
things in our translations, and it’s totally okay because what matters is to
convey the meaning. But I personally believe that it’s important to stick to
the original as much as the target language permits to, i. e. to use the same
grammatical constructions etc. where possible. Of course, only if doing so will
by no means run counter to the grammatical structure of the target language. Unfortunately,
it’s easier said than done for usually the language resources and the number of
options to choose from won’t let us respect the original text the way we’d like
to. As mentioned above, languages are different, especially if we cite English
against Japanese. But it’s not like these languages are 100% different in all
aspects. There are cases when you can almost – or close to that – literally
translate a phrase from one language into another, conveying the meaning, respecting
the register, and the syntax of the original sentence. And 上手くいった例は少ない is just the very case. The grammar used here is simple and basic. And, most
importantly, it’s easily convertible into English almost without losses. Such
sentence will probably look the same grammatically if translated into other
languages due to the simplicity of its structure (If I were to translate this
sentence into, say, Italian or French, in terms of the structure it would look
almost the same). This is what I meant by grammatical matching — when you are
able to respect the grammatical structure of the original sentence like that,
causing no harm like altering the meaning etc.
So I was confused as to why the sentence in your translation was so
different on the syntactic level from the original version while you could
translate it as it was, and the original meaning would have not been lost. In
your case, the meaning was indeed altered. Whereas “few” and
“hardly” may make a minor difference, the omission of the key word 例 makes a major one. The crucial fact that there actually were cases cannot
be inferred from your original translation, as you agreed, so I thought it
might lead to misinforming. Hence, I thought I’d let you know since I had no
idea if it was just a matter of
preference or a mistake. I swear I’m not trying to be picky here or anything,
but as you actually corrected the first version, I could also add that “many”
and “strict” do not suggest the same thing as well. The number of
restrictions (which may vary from five to hundred) does not in any way
determine their quality; your sentence does not imply whether they are strict
or not. Additionally, I don’t see why there’s a conjunction in both variants.
2)
No, I’m not at all adamant. My point is that not being forbidden (by laws
or not) is not akin to being allowed, that’s all. It often happens that what is
permitted by law is not always allowed in practice. Imposing severe
restrictions on what is technically allowed often serves as a nice tool to
actually forbid what’s supposedly allowed, or as a minimum, to keep people from
taking advantage of their rights. I never said the possibility of such marriage
was zero/ it was completely forbidden. Why would I given the staff stated
otherwise? As for the certificates, I did say it was only assuming things on my
part so never mind. As far as the possibility of the marriage between an
Enforcer and an Inspector goes (what was originally the point, lol), even
though we are free to assume it’s possible, despite the restrictions of an
unknown nature, there’s an almost inevitable obstacle to such a civil union,
and that’s the Psycho-Hazard. Furthermore, suppose it was possible, then the
relationships would be possible as well, thus there would be no point for
Kouzuki to ponder on how meaningless and futile they were for Enforcers; how
the love for Inspector was the hardest part etc.
3)
First off, I appreciate all the links provided (I checked most of them out
nine months ago though) as well as the commentary by Thai translators. Still, I
would like to point out that being an non-native speaker and having friends,
whose proficiency level lets them attend Japanese universities and study along
with Japanese students, I often hear them tell me – I am conscious of the fact
myself as well – that we still have a long way to go in order to reach or get
closer to what could be called perfection; perfection in both translating and
understanding/seeing through nuances. It’s only natural for any translator to
doubt their own ability and to have enough courage to not only consult the
dictionaries, but a native speaker
as well, especially if it’s a native speaker whose years of work experience spanning
for three decades and whose skill to comprehensibly explain the nuances of the
Japanese language to foreigners speak for themselves. As you probably figured
out from reading my notes, I was lucky to have such a person to consult when I
was working on this translation. Dictionaries are undisputablely an
authoritative source when it comes to defining words and whatnot, but with all
due respect, they don’t always provide enough material to rely on as they
cannot cover all the definitions and meanings a word can gain when in context.
Thus I am inclined to think that, when dealing with this particular case,
consulting a native speaker was a more efficient option.
Second, 恋愛, like any other word, can have both meanings, depending on the context.
Moreover, few of the dictionaries you chose (the same goes for the articles
where the said word is explained by the Japanese) say anything about the
feeling being solely mutual; most of them only add the mutuality to the primary
definition. I’m not going to translate every definition as it is
time-consuming, however let me point out the mistake you’ve made in the
definition in quotes. Because the very definition you used as an example —
contrary to your statement that not a single dictionary says anything about the
feeling being unrequited — actually indicates that 恋愛 means both, mutual and unrequited feelings.
特定の異性に特別の愛情を感じて恋い慕うこと。また、男女が互いにそのような感情をもつこと。「熱烈に―する」「社内―」
Literally it says
that “Ren'ai” means:
a feeling of
special love and yearning for a particular someone of the opposite sex. Also,
it means that this kind of affection between a man and a woman is mutual.
また is used here to
indicate an addition, a secondary meaning of the word, another meaning this
word has. In your translation it appears to be lost.
As you can see, the dictionary cites the primary definition of the word (i.
e. the feelings for opposite sex) first and only then it specifies that it can
be mutual. But it never says that it can be ONLY mutual. Likewise this kind of
logic applies to unrequited feelings.
By the way, the huge article by some native Japanese speaker, which you
yourself chose and read (http://id.fnshr.info/2013/04/07/what-is-love/), confirms it.
この定義だと、『広辞苑』と違って片思いの場合も含まれる。なので、こちらの方が定義としては良さそうだ。
This definition, in
contrast to 『広辞苑』, also includes a meaning of one-sided love. That is
why this dictionary seems to be better at defining it.
In view of the aforesaid, even the dictionary confirms that the word can
mean both. Like in any other language, where no word that stands alone, out of
the context, implies either mutuality or non-reciprocity. Once we throw the
word into a context, it invokes an additional idea. I don’t know about Thai
though. But actually, the idea of possibly one-sided love was expressed in
another sentence, which led me to assume 恋愛 may imply just that. I’ll get back to that in a moment.
In case my argument might appear as lacking evidence, I’ve asked some of my
Japanese friends (eight people) for their opinion. One and all said I was wrong
about 恋愛 meaning only mutual feeling as it
means both, depending on the context. And that’s what the professor I consulted
told me as well nine months ago. And I was also curious so I tried asking a
question on Yahoo Answers Japan to have some random opinion (http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q11148873411). The rest of the answer is a bit irrelevant and obvious, but
the first sentence does say the same thing. For those of you who follow this
gigantic XD discussion and do not know Japanese, I’ll translate:
There is a meaning of unrequited love as well
as a meaning of mutual love.
I think that when someone has feelings of love (好き), it will be referred to as love (恋), i.e. 恋愛 (love). When it has something to do with
thoughts like “I like/love” (好き), anything can be referred to as 恋愛, I think.
It’s a shame only one person has responded but I need to thank her anyway for wasting her time.
Third, I honestly don’t understand on what basis you concluded that they
were dating. Where does that sentence say anything about it? Correct me if I am
wrong. No matter what kind of love is meant there, mutual or not, having
feelings for each other has absolutely nothing to do with actual dating. But
I’ll repeat myself and say that it was clearly stated that Risa views Kouzuki
as 相棒同士, partners/comrades in other words. This part
emphasizes that, regardless of what Kouzuki might have felt, Risa didn’t feel
that way. Hence, if that 恋愛
applies not generally, but specifically to Kouzuki, it can only Imply one-sided
love.
If
there’s a part where I was not clear enough, or if you have anything else to
add or correct, feel free to do so, I’m always eager for discussion
Literal translation, according to translation theory, is not a recommended practice for the reason I have already mentioned. Because translation, by its nature, is a form of interpretation itself. Translation theory denotes the ideal translation as accurate as to meaning and using natural forms of the receptor language in a way that is appropriate to the kind of text being translated (Larson, 1991). To simplify, a translator does have freedom in translation in the limited frame of the original meaning, and there is no strict requirement regarding the grammatical structure. Naturally, a translator would attempt to make his/her translation as close as possible to the source text, but to a certain degree, meaning loss in translation is unavoidable. In this case, my translation is a translation from Thai to English, therefore, meaning loss happened as the words used to translate from the Japanese in Thai allow broader usage for both the semantic and syntactic level.
In addition, as I have already explicated, it is impossible to match the grammar of the two languages unless the grammatical structures of the two languages are identical. Some sentences, however, may be perfectly translated from one language into another but such phenomenon doesn’t cover the entire sets of languages.
Ultimately, I wouldn’t not call meaning loss in translation a mistranslation as long as it doesn’t fail to convey, even if not perfectly exact, the meaning as did happen, for instance, with the case of the movie’s English subs regarding Han, in which certain information might have been considered as lost but not really incorrect as opposed to the difference between saying that Han was assassinated in 2116 (as an ‘assumed’ inconsistency in your translation note) and Han had already been assassinated as of 2116 (as I happened to reply to an ask). However, if one would like to look into the details (i.e. for expansion of ideas and/or in-depth analysis), I’d agree that a look into the original text, and consequently context, might provide better information. My original post, if I may repeat, was only meant to answer the question and clear up the confusion made by my many edits. To be honest, I haven’t gotten to read your translation until you sent me the link, so please rest assured that I had no intention of belittling your translating effort or making comparisons.
I’d rather this not be dragged on and on into a debate regarding translation theories and practices as I personally respect each translator’s effort and preference. So instead of digressing from the main points, allow me to be concise and wrap this up.
1. We disagree on the translation framework, and I admit the errors of meaning losses due to indirect translation. My standpoint, though, still remains that the difference is minor, but that depends on how you’d like to apply the information.
2. As far as the text goes, it only specifies the possibility of the marriage albeit with certain restrictions. While it is also feasible that the marriage license could be rejected as you suggested, as long as there is no official information to support this, it remains merely a speculation deduced from the keyword that happened to be missing from my initial translation: the precedents.
3. I agree on the fact that translation is not subjected solely to the consulting of dictionary but also native speakers, chiefly because when there are more than one meaning provided in the dictionary, context is the key for interpretation. However, when it comes to the meaning as described in the dictionary, as language is living and words change their meanings over time, lexicographers are required to research this change of meanings - in addition to adding new words - in large scale and update the dictionary. The reason my friend taiki-taiki has chosen this website (http://id.fnshr.info/2013/04/07/what-is-love/) despite it being a diary entry (as specified by the blogger himself/herself) is due to the fact that it provides different versions of the Japanese-Japanese dictionary. The one that defines it with the specification of mutuality is the most updated dictionary whereas other definitions - the one you mentioned of including one-sided love - are taken from older versions of the Japanese-Japanese dictionary. That’s why my two friends who translated the original post from Japanese to Thai, and probably the Japanese wiki and dict.pixiv as well as people on 2ch identified Aoyanagi and Kozuki’s relationship as dating.
3.1 As for your translation and interpretation here:
特定の異性に特別の愛情を感じて恋い慕うこと。また、男女が互いにそのような感情をもつこと。「熱烈に―する」「社内―」
Literally it says that “Ren'ai” means:
a feeling of special love and yearning for a particular someone of the opposite sex. Also, it means that this kind of affection between a man and a woman is mutual.
また is used here to indicate an addition, a secondary meaning of the word, another meaning this word has. In your translation it appears to be lost.
I have to say I disagree due to the facts that:
The English word “also” here does not indicate a secondary meaning, but an expansion of the first sentence. (FYI, I have already consulted 5 native speakers on this part.)
When it comes to literal translation as you may prefer, “it means that” is actually non-existent in the second sentence. Adding it, however, changes the meaning of the original text.
3.2 The blogger in the link above, on the other hand, did express his/her perspectives on why he/she agreed more with the definitions in the older versions. As interpretation of a word may differ also from person to person, irregulars-daradara has decided to ask Fukami-sensei directly. (https://twitter.com/fukamimakoto/status/631437646607155200)
@fukamimakoto こんばんは。深見先生にお尋ねしたいことがあるのですが、実は最近サイコパスの外国人ファンで青柳と神月は付き合っていたのか、という疑問が話題になっています。私は小説の文章読んで付き合っていたのでは？と思っているのですが、何分母語ではないので説得力に欠けてしまうんです。そこで作者の深見先生にお聞きすることができたら・・・と。お忙しいということは存じていますけれど、ダメもとで質問させていただきました！
PS.理想郷の猟犬とても楽しかったです！ただ狡噛が持っていた本などの所有物はどこから来たのかを知ってしまうと・・・劇場版の「俺の私物だ」発言を聞く度いつも笑ってしまいます。まさにジャイアニズム(笑)
Good evening, I have something to ask Fukami-sensei. At the present, the PP fans overseas are curious if Aoyanagi and Kozuki were dating. I read the novel and thought there were, were they not? But again, because it’s not my mother tongue I am unable to explicate well enough my reasons for thinking so, so I decide to ask Fukami-sensei who is the author. I know that you’re busy but I have to chance it if I might get an answer and understand it better.
P.S. Utopia Hound is very fun! But when I learned where the book or Kougami’s possession came from… I can’t stop laughing whenever I hear the “what is mine” sentence in the movie. Truly Gianism (lol).
リプライありがとうございました。しかし、そのあたりは読者さまの解釈にあえてお任せしているところもあるので、Twitterでの返答はご容赦ください！ すみません！ 理想郷の猟犬読んでくださって感謝です。
Thank you for the mention. But for that part I intentionally left it to readers’ interpretation, so it’s impossible to reply on Twitter. I’m sorry! Thank you for reading Utopia Hound.
Although his reply is as many people in the fandom could have guessed, the confirmation of it being up to interpretation means that no fans’ inference from the text is absolute. Nothing is “clearly stated” and the issues of their dating and feelings are open to preferences, speculations and perhaps…personal bias.
On a lighter note, I would like to say that I always appreciate the effort of translators, especially when they contribute to the fandom without getting money in return. The same appreciation goes for my two friends who always shares the initial translations and summaries with me as well as you, Soranamari-san. I’m glad to hear that you are finally on vacation. I hope it helps you rejuvenate in no time.
Have a nice day.
To be
honest, I am kind of confused as to what position you adhere to, Hiyuura-san,
because in your reply you basically agree with me on the translation points.
You do agree that one would naturally try to translate as close as possible to
the source text; you do agree that some sentences can be perfectly translated
from one language into another — wasn’t it what I was talking about in my previous
reply? I never said it was possible for the grammar of the two languages to
match. I have already explained what I meant by the grammar matching, and that
was respecting the grammar of the original text as much as possible. “As
much as possible” refers to a favorable syntactic environment where the
structures of the two sentences happen to be similar, i. e. the patterns used
in the source text have their respective equivalents on the grammatical level
in the target language and thus the equivalents can be appropriately used to
achieve an adequate translation.
There are
different translation theories out there, and among them, every translator
finds something that he or she considers to be more reliable or accurate or
whatever. Translation may be a form of interpretation, I find it hard to
disagree, however, I still prioritize the respect for the original text above
everything else. It doesn’t necessary mean literal translation; it means
everything I have elaborated on (the paragraph above and my previous reply) in
our discussion so far. It’s completely okay that we have different opinions on
the theories. But I would say that theory and practice do not always go hand in
hand, that’s only natural for theories can’t be applied to every single case a
translator will have to face one day or another. Theories are by all means of
great use when applied generally. Just like you said, generally, literal
translation is not recommended for all the reasons aforesaid, but you seem to
be talking about the matter at hand in an abstract manner whereas I am talking
about this particular instance and the possibilities of literal translation in
this particular case along with the grammatical structure of this very
sentence, that’s all. It goes without saying that the language structures
cannot be identical, but the fact that there are sentences, sometimes — even
paragraphs that can be perfectly translated is undeniable.
If a
meaning loss took place, you should’ve just cited the Thai version and explain
where the root of that loss was as the mistake apparently had occurred in the
Japanese-Thai translation, not the Thai-English one. And it’s not a matter of
translation theory or the importance of conveying the meaning. In this case the
meaning was not only lost, it was altered.
I don’t
really get what the inconsistency I have pointed out has to do with anything
nor did I watch the movie with English subs but I’ll be happy to discus this
point as well since it is not very clear, indeed. As Han was actually killed in
2116, just like it had been stated in both, the movie and the profiling book,
it took me by surprise to read that, according to the staff, he was killed after
the construction of Shambhala Float had started. In view of the confusion, I respectively
made a note about the inconsistency of the information. Maybe I am still
missing something or they have changed Han’s profile in the BD version but
let’s take a look at the facts.
The
profiling book says Han was killed in 2116.
The movie
says Han has already ben killed.
The staff
representative in the Q&A replies that he was killed after the construction
had started.
Now when
the start of the construction was? There you have it, the inconsistency. Given the
half-assed manner in which the staff answered the questions (just remembering
their “we leave it up to your imagination” alone makes me mad), I’m
inclined to believe that Han was killed in 2116 and what we have as their reply
is yet another slip-up on their part.
It was
clear from the start that your original post aimed at answering the question,
that’s what replying to the asks is all about, after all. My reply, as I have
mentioned before, was meant to clarify the misunderstanding that could’ve taken
place due to not quite correct translation and to add my personal thoughts on
the matter; having read the novels, I am quite familiar with this issue myself
so…
I
completely agree. Wrapping this up is a good idea, I guess. Elaborating on
translation theories is pretty much pointless. I, too, respect your effort as
well as that of everyone else, of course. ;)
1. I agree that we agree to disagree. XD
2. I agree here as well because that’s what I was talking about. Marriages are
not forbidden, there are strict regulations to them, few cases turned out well,
however, provided how the characters view the situation as something
impossible, it’s most likely that the chances of actually getting married are
slim to none, if such a chance really exists outside of laws and official
documents, that is.
3. The choice of the article is as clear as a bell: the blogger took all the
definitions from different dictionaries, compared them and did some analytical
work. The conclusion made by reducing all the definitions to a general one is
crucial. However, I still fail to grasp what gave you the idea of dating as
even mutual love has nothing to do with actual dating as lovers/bf+gf. One can
love without letting the other know how he/she feels. Or, on the contrary, both
can be aware of each other’s feelings and yet do absolutely nothing about it,
just suffer in the corner and be satisfied with it. Well, anyway, it’s not the
point anymore.
3.1.1. As for またand “also”, I think you
are rephrasing what I said. Both またand “also” imply
additional meaning, i. e. broaden the term. Additional meaning and the
extension thereof are meant here as the same thing. Maybe we perceive these
concepts or view them differently, but as far as I can tell, you understood
what I was trying to say since you just said the same thing. Anyway, また does expand the meaning, but does not narrow it to the definition of
mutual love only.
3.1.2. As for こと and “it means”, こと implies an action, and changes its multiplex meaning depending on the
usage. When it comes to defining dictionary entries, it is used in the meaning
of という意味, which means “it means”, “has
the meaning of” so I am puzzled as to why you pointed it out. Furthermore,
the translation didn’t change the meaning. Both sentences could be translated by
means of “it means blah”, but that would sound ridiculous.
3.2. Of course, it’s great you decided to actually ask him directly, and
what’s even more amazing is that he actually replied but personally, I don’t
really see the point in doing it. No one expects him to give a definite answer.
His job is nicely done. He created an underplot, leaving clues in the form of
words with vague meanings and different connotations behind them for the people
to see through. In addition, being the author of the novel, and not the
original creator, he has no right to talk about such things on Twitter. He
should be thankful it was on Twitter or else it’d really awkward for him and he’d
be quite troubled having you corner him and ask him that, say, at a conference.
XDD And what kind of a writer would he be, had he revealed the truth behind the
mystery of such a provoking idea? It would simply ruin the plot. But I’m
frustrated anyway because of his being mean and not trying to solve the mystery,
haha. Though I fully understand that there’s nothing he can do about it. I’d do
the same if I were in his shoes. He did his best, however, in conveying the
idea by means of the vocabulary and grammar patterns used. His reply neither
confirmed anything nor did it refute. All he said was that we are free to ship
them if we want to. He would have said the same regarding KouMaki’s
relationship based on mutual interest or any other ship. Unfortunately, this is
how the fanservice machine works, and it’s quite merciless when it comes to characters.
Still, canon is canon; it was, is and always will be fundamental, that’s why
creators always try to keep it within an exact and understandable framework.
This is what Fukami did: he wrote the novel, described a simple situation using
correct and sophisticated Japanese, and, with the help of a couple of ambiguous
expressions, produced a plot which was required of him, but which, if one reads
into it properly, is just throwing dust in our eyes.
Regardless of his reply, the fact remains: the way he presented the idea of
how Risa viewed Kouzuki was well-defined in the text. That’s the reason why I
said and would still say that it was clear. His reply just goes to prove that
it’s up to us to decide (what was the conclusion of my original translation
post and what I have explained there). Decisions are made based on facts; the
facts are in the book, and it’s my personal choice to follow what’s written in
there. Shippers are gonna ship anyway but if you ask me, his reply is meant to
stir up the interest and the desire to read between the lines of what he had to
say. I believe there are keys to solve the puzzle there.
Of course, I feel the same way. 3 It seems
I properly took my time enjoying my vacation, lol, to the extent where I didn’t
have the time for anything else. == Let me apologize again for taking this long
to reply.
You, too, have a nice day!
Dear Soranamari-san,
I see no point in further continuing this 2-week-old discussion given that I have already stated all needed to be said. I am inclined to think that the replies on my previous posts are clear enough; I have also already provided the explanation about the Thai version just in case you have missed it. As I don’t feel like repeating myself regardless of different versions of paraphrasing, I will leave the rest up to your ability and interpretation.
As for the text, while I completely respect your personal opinion and interpretation, I’d rather not call it a fact given that the author intentionally used words with more than one meanings to create ambiguity. It may be a ‘fact’ to you but perhaps not a ‘fact’ to everyone regardless of his ‘marketing’ purpose. Staking something as a fact, therefore, may induce the risk of forcing your personal opinions onto others or making them feel thus.
I’m glad to hear that you enjoyed well your vacation. Thank you for your regards and the long discussion.
May today be another lovely day for you.