Originally Posted by
fallacies
It's at least in part an effort at a "fairly" literal translation that represents the Japanese terminology to a reasonable accuracy — in my opinion (because it's obviously just my own opinion).
Sometimes the grammar is admittedly strange and nonstandard — but if a particularly difficult-to-comprehend bit isn't accounted for in the original Japanese terminology / sentence construction, then I can only ask that you forgive my preference in word choice and so forth. If you find it abhorrent, you find it abhorrent.
If I do a translation of something, a perfectly readable translation generally already exists, and my run-through is just an effort to elucidate what the original terminology in the Japanese was. Obviously, you can dispute whether I'm at all successful, or if these efforts are even warranted or useful — but given the existence of another translation, I don't really see a need to emphasize ease of readability.
That said, if you run the source text of the above through Google, you get:
Machine translation these days looks like this. You can say that it's significantly more readable than what I came up with, and I'd even agree with you. However, it doesn't in my opinion fulfill the objective of terminological clarity — which is the reason I bothered at all.