On hellfire. From the darkest, most tenebrous depths of hell.
--
Paracite, I can't seem to get the bottom white margin out of FAIYAH no matter what CSS voodoo I try. Or maybe the problem (with the visible margin) is just on my side?
Paracite, I can't seem to get the bottom white margin out of FAIYAH no matter what CSS voodoo I try. Or maybe the problem (with the visible margin) is just on my side?
@DGKelly: Wont = accustomed/apt. "is wont to X" is to have a habit of doing X. It is not the same as want. ("is/are want to" is just shitty grammar).
e.g. "Where be your gibes now? Your gambols? Your songs? Your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar?"—Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 1.
Yes, it's 'archaic', but this is to reflect Teetoku (and Sensui)'s old-fashioned manner of speaking.
Geez, if I have a penny each time someone tries to 'correct' my notes but instead manages to mangle the grammar instead...
(I mean, sure, we translators are human, and a lot of us don't even speak English as our first language. Grammatical mistakes and typos are bound to pop up, and we appreciate it a lot when you correct our mistakes. But at least make sure you doublecheck your grammar (and the original's) before you fix someone else's.)
(Side rant: "He is come" is correct. Yes, "He has come" is what they teach you in schools, but seriously, try reading more literature like Shakespeare. Or Lord of the Rings. Or even singing some Christmas carols, "Joy to the world...". If a translator uses an archaic form instead of a more contemporary one, he usually has a good reason to. Like to reflect a character using a more archaic manner of speaking in the original Japanese, or a character just being more pompous than usual, etc.)
Perhaps 'It is not our wont to be carrying flames around' could avoid confusion, as it is normally seen, in the wild, as the noun rather than the adjective?
Most people don't learn archaic forms, which is a shame, but unfortunately the reality of the situation - ESL readers moreso. As much fun as it can be to be prescriptivist, descriptivism always wins in the end.
Perhaps 'It is not our wont to be carrying flames around' could avoid confusion, as it is normally seen, in the wild, as the noun rather than the adjective?
Most people don't learn archaic forms, which is a shame, but unfortunately the reality of the situation - ESL readers moreso. As much fun as it can be to be prescriptivist, descriptivism always wins in the end.
Good idea. Changed the notes accordingly.
--
I tend to lean towards prescriptivism as I'm an ESL speaker myself (in a former British colony), so I can't afford to be too descriptivist else I start backsliding into the pidgin (techncially "creole") English used so often around here.
Perhaps 'It is not our wont to be carrying flames around' could avoid confusion, as it is normally seen, in the wild, as the noun rather than the adjective?
Most people don't learn archaic forms, which is a shame, but unfortunately the reality of the situation - ESL readers moreso. As much fun as it can be to be prescriptivist, descriptivism always wins in the end.
Bah, such is not my wont.
Seriously, I've had well-intentioned folk correct purposefully bad grammar or archaic/fancy terminology too. I just revert it, leave a "thanks, but it was on purpose" comment, and stick a "not a typo" TN in the note. Now and again, they ask first.
Seriously, I've had well-intentioned folk correct purposefully bad grammar or archaic/fancy terminology too. I just revert it, leave a "thanks, but it was on purpose" comment, and stick a "not a typo" TN in the note. Now and again, they ask first.
Funny you mention that. Someone asked about the exact same word here too.
Seriously, I've had well-intentioned folk correct purposefully bad grammar or archaic/fancy terminology too. I just revert it, leave a "thanks, but it was on purpose" comment, and stick a "not a typo" TN in the note. Now and again, they ask first.
Such is the peril of being a translator! Stupid large vocabularies (and access to the OED).
NNescio said:
Funny you mention that. That (asking about the same word) happened to Paracite too.
Is it really that uncommon a word? I mean, it's not the most used expression, but the phrase 'felled the beast' should be recognisable, at least... I mean, it's not like 'fell mood', or 'fell-stitch' or 'walk across the fells', those I would get...
Plus in that one, it seemed that someone thought that it only applied to trees...
Such is the peril of being a translator! Stupid large vocabularies (and access to the OED).
Is it really that uncommon a word? I mean, it's not the most used expression, but the phrase 'felled the beast' should be recognisable, at least...
Shouldn't be a problem among native speakers, but I wouldn't put it past ESL learners. Heck, we don't even have any literature as part of our syllabus, apart from a few abridged (read: heavily mangled) texts.
I had that exact same word 'corrected' in my (7th? It's an equivalent anyway, we're not using the American system) grade essay by my English teacher.
Yep, she put "fall". *facepalm*
And when I raised the issue, she told me it was all my fault for "using bombastic words." *facedesk*
Edit: Missed a part.
Paracite said:
... I mean, it's not like 'fell mood', or 'fell-stitch' or 'walk across the fells', those I would get...
Plus in that one, it seemed that someone thought that it only applied to trees...
Urist "Wordsmith" Ileshtƒn has been taken by a fell mood!
Shouldn't be a problem among native speakers, but I wouldn't put it past ESL learners. Heck, we don't even have any literature as part of our syllabus, apart from a few abridged (read: heavily mangled) texts.
I had that exact same word 'corrected' in my (7th? It's an equivalent anyway, we're not using the American system) grade essay by my English teacher.
Yep, she put "fall". *facepalm*
And when I raised the issue, she told me it was all my fault for "using bombastic words." *facedesk*
That happened to me a lot in ESL classes actually. I had to teach a native speaker the difference between affect and effect even, it comes down to who reads more I think.
Do not call that a 'setting'!Incidentally, she's just unconscious.But it is not our wont to be carrying flames around.
get up
She'll revive once you relight the flame on her head.W-Would this work?Princess! Remember! You do have a flame!I told you, I do not simply carry flames around!My sincerest apologies!
FAIYAH!
pomf
I was certain
I had slain her.
Quickly now,
bring it forth!
shock
FWOOOOOM
What are you babbling about? Your default settings had you equipped with Tenebrous Hellfire (lol), did they not?
See Puchi #128 and the frame below.
