Translation Help Thread

[GundamFSN]

It doesn't make sense for 全ての符 to be the one doing the breaking, when it's clearly RB that's breaking them.

[castor212]

so this one is just context dependent?

[canaki]

I never tried Japanese grammar in English so pardon the Japanese stuck everywhere. (And also I'm very sorry if I got the 活用 wrong, grammar was never my best subject.)

Breaking 破戒すべき down:
- 破戒す is the 終止形 of 破戒する
- べき is the 連体形 of べきだ (当然の助動詞)
-- As you can tell from the 連体形, 「破戒すべき」→(係る)→符

Think of other similar examples like 倒すべき敵, 果たすべき使命, 食べるべき朝ごはん; there is the omitted "who" that should do whatever to the thing we're talking about.
I think it should be the same for this, so the full meaning is probably like (somebody(Medea)が)(RBを使って)破戒すべき全ての符.

[castor212]

I never tried Japanese grammar in English so pardon the Japanese stuck everywhere. (And also I'm very sorry if I got the 活用 wrong, grammar was never my best subject.)

Breaking 破戒すべき down:
- 破戒す is the 終止形 of 破戒する
- べき is the 連体形 of べきだ (当然の助動詞)
-- As you can tell from the 連体形, 「破戒すべき」→(係る)→符

Think of other similar examples like 倒すべき敵, 果たすべき使命, 食べるべき朝ごはん; there is the omitted "who" that should do whatever to the thing we're talking about.
I think it should be the same for this, so the full meaning is probably like (somebody(Medea)が)(RBを使って)破戒すべき全ての符.

Ohh, thanks for this.

So, if i get your explanation right, adding a べき after a verb-u form followed by a noun means that verb-u+べき is now an adjective to the noun, in that it is something that has to happen to the noun?

[mewarmo990]

Ohh, thanks for this.

So, if i get your explanation right, adding a べき after a verb-u form followed by a noun means that verb-u+べき is now an adjective to the noun, in that it is something that has to happen to the noun?

it's how Japanese grammar generally works. You can have entire clauses modifying another phrase or word after it.

"Adjective" is not really the right word for this but if that helps you understand, then sure.

[castor212]

i have the word that has closer meaning, but its in my mother language, and adjective is the closest i know in English, sumanai

anyway, thanks you all!

[castor212]

Maybe stupid question but emglish isnt my primary language and i want to make sure

Is knight of owner, grammaticallu speaking, correct

I mean, besides the fact that it sounds lame

[mewarmo990]

not really, in English

[Arashi_Leonhart]

not really, in English

making it consistent with other Type Moon things, hah

[mewarmo990]

the NP name is 騎士は徒手にて死せず anyway

[Mcjon01]

Maybe stupid question but emglish isnt my primary language and i want to make sure

Is knight of owner, grammaticallu speaking, correct

I mean, besides the fact that it sounds lame

Knight of Owner isn't grammatically correct
Knight of Honor isn't thematically correct
Lancelot just can't win (the only part of all this that's definitely correct)

[castor212]

if it isnt too much

can you guys break it down why KoH is ok but not KoO grammatically

also is this the same case with Chain of Heaven?

[mewarmo990]

anything "of Owner" doesn't really make sense.

"Heaven" in "Chain of Heaven" is a proper noun, which is why it's different.

[castor212]

so owner isnt "proper" noun

also would

knight of an owner or
knight of the owner or
knight of owners

be correct

[mewarmo990]

Those would be less incorrect but they still sound weird.

[Mcjon01]

The only way to make it right would be to make it Knight of Ownership, which sounds lame, which is good for Lancelot because he's lame.

[Arashi_Leonhart]

The Owning Knight

[mewarmo990]

The Owned Knight

[castor212]

im probs not as educated in english than you guys but

arent owner and ownership both a noun

[Arashi_Leonhart]

https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...un-vs-nounnoun