Because this:Originally Posted by Mercedes4321
Because this:
Last edited by ballinamon; April 29th, 2023 at 01:53 AM.
Oh yeah there's also the whole thing about having a Principle without idea blood, so not all Principles are Henomonic Principles.
Going for "principle" in beasts is just making it more confusing than it needs to be, there's other words you could go for if you really hate Logos. Postulate is prententious enough if you need something like that
This is my speculation/hopium.
In Nasu's idea for HGW4, 4th War Rider was a Dragon Rider and Iskander was an Extra Class with IH.
He also mentions that his idea of a tyrant was someone more similar to Nero. That when he was making Nero, he was very conscious of Zero!Iskander.
My guess is that Nero's proper class should be the Extra Class that Nasu!HGW4 Iskander was going to be and he's slightly nodding to it in her Extra mats entry up there.
Commander-type as in an aspect who orders people around rather than fighting in the front lines but maybe that was also the main qualification of that Extra Class.
Though abandoned, forgotten, and scorned as out-of-date dolls, they continue to carry out their mission, unchanged from the time they were designed.
Machines do not lose their worth when a newer model appears.
Their worth (life) ends when humans can no longer bear that purity.
This is news to me. Did Arc mention that in her lectures?
https://youtu.be/JOn3Ve5MlF8
- - - Updated - - -
That doesn't exactly work, since postulate implies something more along the lines of "suggestion". The word should have a stronger connotation, one that says "this is what the Beast is, it could not be anything else even if it tried". Similarly, "reason" suggests it's purely an intellectual thing when it's far more fundamental in nature than that.
Last edited by InsertNameHere; April 29th, 2023 at 01:58 AM.
Man, we as society don't shame illiterates often enough.
.
Hemonomic Principle
Idea Blood. The quality of the blood that makes the Ancestors what they are, and a foundational commandment etched on their soul.
The Dead Apostles who inherited this blood would always rise up to become Ancestors no matter their rank; Arcueid compared it to a "crown".
On the other hand, a millennium-class foundation is needed for the Hemonomic Principle to function, and even if a Dead Apostle with hundreds of years of activity were to inherit it they would be crushed by that curse. Properly speaking it was not something that Vlov could withstand, but thanks to a technique given to him by a certain Dead Apostle as well as his desire for revenge against that person he managed to retain his sanity until the end.
Though abandoned, forgotten, and scorned as out-of-date dolls, they continue to carry out their mission, unchanged from the time they were designed.
Machines do not lose their worth when a newer model appears.
Their worth (life) ends when humans can no longer bear that purity.
I remember reading that, but in context it sounds like by "foundation" it's talking about something different from the capital-P Principle, most likely some kind of established power base or just the sufficient age.
I just threw it around, mostly because in mathematics and physics you use the word postulate as your fundamental idea that will drive everything in your calculations and proof, and you will base your reasonings on your postulate, everything is derived from that initial thought, and that reminded me of beasts (also most of my knowledge is maths based and that kanj is used for sciences so why not). It's obviously not perfect but I also doubt you'll find a perfect word in english for "Chinese idea for what is the underlying principle of the word and morality" and Logos fits well enough, mine isn't really better.
My issue with the term "postulate" is that postulates can be proven wrong or unnecessary, like with the parallel postulate in geometry. That's not the case with Beasts, it's the most fundamental aspect of their existence and can no more be disproven or made unnecessary than the fact that water is wet or that you can read this message. Similarly, "Logos" implies it to be purely a matter of the intellect or the mind when it's far deeper than that.
By comparison, "principle" does a far better job at conveying that fundamental being-essence despite the potential for it to be conflated with the TsukiRE concept. Failing that, "essence" or "core nature" could suffice.
Last edited by InsertNameHere; April 29th, 2023 at 02:29 AM.
Using certain Latin terms to differentiate certain words that are hard to translate from the original CN/JP as localization attempt I think are fair game, to make terms distinctive enough due to their importance, and at the same time not taking much away from the original meaning. Genshin calling Xian as Adeptus is a decently good attempt for example.
Thesis for the Evangelion reference
Fuck no, now you're giving me flashbacks to grad school. All those dense technical papers nobody will ever read...
- - - Updated - - -
In that case it works because the Latin has nothing to do with the original meaning at all, and indeed was never intended to be related to it. Good if you want to make something sound cool, bad if you want people to actually understand what a term means. In that example, it's irrelevant because "magical creature/minor god with unnecessarily long title" is easy enough to understand.
Bonus points if it's not actually Latin and just sounds like it is.
Last edited by InsertNameHere; April 29th, 2023 at 02:41 AM.
A Xian isn't a magical creature.
What else would you call an Illuminated Beast, then?
That's just one type of entities who studied the way of Taoism (hence illuminated), or related to a Xian. What you're trying to do is like using Divine Beast to call Divine Spirits.
I did also say that some minor gods were Xian too. But it's beside the point, nobody uses the term to refer to anything else and all it needs to do is sound exotic. It doesn't have to actually describe what they are.
But Adeptus does describes what the Xians are, if you are literate enough (or do enough research to know): 'One who has attained.' The alchemists applied the term vere adeptus, 'truly adept', to anyone who claimed to have found the Elixir of Life or the Philosopher's Stone.
Xians are literally Chinese version of these alchemists. In fact, it fits even more than Chinese fairies, Chinese immortals, hermits and the likes that are being more commonly used.
I've never played Genshin, so I don't know if I'm just missing something, but it feels like 'Adeptus' is such an obscure word you would be better of leaving it as 'Xian'. Like you point out that if you are literate enough or do research it conveys the nuance, but surely 'Xian' does that job considerably better and doesn't add weird Greek flavor that wasn't in the original text.
Since I am ultimately responsible for picking Logos as a translation for 理 (ことわり), I suppose I should actually explain how I took this decision, since it appears people have misconceptions about what BOTH of these words mean.
At its core, ことわり is a Japanese word derived from an older classical Japanese verb (ことわる), which evolved into 断る (to refuse) in modern usage. However, in the original classical form it meant something like "to judge right or wrong". This eventually came to be used as "to reason (with words)". Incidentally, ことわる comes from 言 (word) and 割る (split), so that should give some idea on how this meaning formed. It is this meaning of "to reason with words" that I found interesting, as the 連用形 (conjunctive form) of it gradually becomes linked with 理 (the chinese character for 'reasoning'). While the verb itself eventually splits off to mean "refuse", the conjunctive form of it stays associated with 'reasoning', and eventually comes to mean "the reason something is the way it is", essentially.
Nevertheless, the reason I felt like 'logos' was a good fit is because it has similar origins and meaning. Much like ことわり, logos was derived from a greek word that has to do with speaking (λόγος in its greek form). You may recognize it from words like "prologue" and "epilogue", i.e "that spoken prior" and "that spoken after". Throughout its history as terminology used within western philosophy, it strays from meaning "the spoken word" and becomes associated with reasoning, especially reasonings given in oral speeches. The greeks themselves adopted part of this word-root into λογικός (logikos), which eventually becomes the English "logic". Logos, on the other hand, stays as a word closely associated with philosophy. In particular, it takes on a pretty divergent meaning in Christian literature, but that's ultimately derived from this sense of "the reason things are as they are" = "the way God has ordained the world". Most 'learned' people all the way up to the early 20th century were generally educated classically (i.e, in the studies of Latin and Greek), and so the word Logos lived on in most European languages as meaning essentially "reason/ing". You can find it in texts for thousands of years with this meaning essentially intact, sometimes being reinterpreted depending on the author's view on "reason/ing".
Putting it like that, it's quite easy to see the familiarities. They're both ancient words with ancient meanings preserved to the present. Not only that, but they essentially mean the same thing. I think it's a fairly good choice, and thankfully it doesn't interfere too much with other terms (only Logos Eater and Logos React use it, and seemingly just for chuuni style-points). I'm actually entirely open to other suggestions, but Principle is one that I've already ruled out because of aforementioned issues.
To go on a bit of a tangent, and to elucidate some general 'philosophy' regarding the translation of terms. One of the hidden benefits of "logos" is that it doesn't step on too many toes. What I mean by that is that as it is a more uncommon word (and one you won't find in most J>E dictionaries), it is unlikely to interfere with the translation of more common words in Japanese. This can be of huge help, as it adds some level of "future-proofing" to a translation, while also letting the translator be more free in choosing their words when translating things of a more 'common' nature. Essentially, highly specific terminology is best rendered as a word that is highly specific as to not get in the way for the rest of the translation process.
The fact that logos also doesn't come with too many 'preconceived notions' is also a plus. Someone in this thread said they disliked it because they didn't know what it meant. That's fine, and almost desired, actually. That means you can form an association with the words that doesn't interfere with the interpretation. This was the big problem with 'sin', really. Because people have such a set idea of what a 'sin' is, they interpret the word with a very specific preconception; one often associated with Christian cultural notions. This combined with the Beasts being seven in number has lead people to try and link them far too overtly with the seven deadly sins, when the truth of the matter is that this link was assuredly not intended. This chapter (Lilim Harlot) actually has tons of references to the SDS, partially in some of the side-chapter titles, but also in the "dream-sequence" given in the last timelock (it even references two of the proto-SDS). This informs me that the SDS are associated specifically with Christian notions in F/GO, and not Beasts at large, since Beast VI is the Christian one.
Anyway, at the end of the day, people are free to say whatever they want. But as a translator, I will always do what I feel is the most correct and appropriate, regardless of how other people feel about that.
Last edited by Petrikow; April 29th, 2023 at 04:26 AM.
Would you say it is the job of the translator to 1. not translate, and 2. dumb down the original text for the reader? Because that is essentially what you are arguing for.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
