Fanmanga - DB Multiverse

[Senzu_Bean]

My post wasn't aiming towards yours. I was simple saying the story makes little sense cause the reason I posted above.

[rereboy]

Oh, I assumed it was.

[Godo]

I just want to add that I think that it's amusing that people try to make sense of the story, still to this day.
It's obvious that the authors don't put much thought into the story, so why bother?
There are several errors, just face it. Just because of that you like the story, it doesn't have to mean that the errors are non-existent. They are there, and their existence is clear, and they are many.

[rereboy]

I just want to add that I think that it's amusing that people try to make sense of the story, still to this day.
It's obvious that the authors don't put much thought into the story, so why bother?
There are several errors, just face it. Just because of that you like the story, it doesn't have to mean that the errors are non-existent. They are there, and their existence is clear, and they are many.

The only not so good element is this special chapter. The others specials were alright and the main story, as long as you accept the LSSJ as having his own rules, is awesome.

[Dayspring]

What a horrible translation. The comet passed by, not through him, and only damaged the surface.

??

In the french page it says "La comète avait traversé Brolly, puis détruit la surface de la Planète."

I think this translates to something like: "The comet had crossed Brolly, then it destroyed the surface of the planet".

Not sure where you got the only damaged part... But I could be wrong.

Also the part about powers, it only talks about powers, not nearest powers. I also don`t know where you got that "nearest" from.

The english translation of the page is not far off at all although I would change the best enemy to sworn enemy and went through to crossed.

The original reads "traversed Broly" when translated into English. While still accurate, it's an awkward diction in English, and can arguably mean going through him instead of going by him. So "crossed by", "passed by", "went by"... it's all pretty much the same thing. I just grabbed "passed by" because I was taking the version used and emphasizing that it was NOT going through Broly.

And "destroyed" is indeed the word used. I wasn't translating there, I was just trying to get people to use it contextually. The writers obviously don't mean the planet's surface became non-existant, just that it's been totaled. The fact that Broly's shown a few panels later on a devastated planet's surface said to be New Vegeta itself prooves this.

It also doesn't say anything about nearest, it just stands to reason that they are: he sensed "powers", not Goku and Trunks', not "large power," just powers themselves. The odds are whichever he sensed first are those closest to him. This is the point I'm emphasizing: it's not just a wonky coincidence that he made his way all the way across the Universe and "stumbled upon" Earth, it's implying Earth was the nearest planet to him.

[rereboy]

I understand your reasoning, but if the translator did that, he would be actually doing more than just translate, he would be trying to improve the original dialog, which obviously shouldn`t be his job. His job is just to transcribe faithfully into english what was being said.

[Bussani]

I understand your reasoning, but if the translator did that, he would be actually doing more than just translate, he would be trying to improve the original dialog, which obviously shouldn`t be his job. His job is just to transcribe faithfully into english what was being said.

Huh? How? You have to pick the right English words to keep the original meaning, otherwise it would be a pretty poor translation.

[rereboy]

I understand your reasoning, but if the translator did that, he would be actually doing more than just translate, he would be trying to improve the original dialog, which obviously shouldn`t be his job. His job is just to transcribe faithfully into english what was being said.

Huh? How? You have to pick the right English words to keep the original meaning, otherwise it would be a pretty poor translation.

Simple. If the original French says "he felt powers" you can not translate it to "he felt the nearest powers". Doing so would be assuming something that the original dialog might not have meant.

For example, the original dialog could have meant that he felt the powers of the ones he fought before, but they only wrote that he felt powers. In that case, if we really wanted to improve the dialog, we would have to translate it as "he felt the powers of his enemies" because that was the original intention, and not "nearest powers" which you be a mistake.

Basically, unless Salagir directly explains to the translators what the original meaning was, the translator can not assume anything that is not there.

The same way, the translator can not translate something incorrectly, just because the original dialog seems to contradict something, unless the original author says its OK. For example, you can not translate that the comet only "damaged the surface" when it clearly says in the original dialog that it "destroyed the surface".

[Freeza Heika]

I understand your reasoning, but if the translator did that, he would be actually doing more than just translate, he would be trying to improve the original dialog, which obviously shouldn`t be his job. His job is just to transcribe faithfully into english what was being said.

Huh? How? You have to pick the right English words to keep the original meaning, otherwise it would be a pretty poor translation.

Simple. If the original French says "he felt powers" you can not translate it to "he felt the nearest powers". Doing so would be assuming something that the original dialog might not have meant.

For example, the original dialog could have meant that he felt the powers of the ones he fought before, but they only wrote that he felt powers. In that case, if we really wanted to improve the dialog, we would have to translate it as "he felt the powers of his enemies" because that was the original intention, and not "nearest powers" which you be a mistake.

Basically, unless Salagir directly explains to the translators what the original meaning was, the translator can not assume anything that is not there.

The same way, the translator can not translate something incorrectly, just because the original dialog seems to contradict something, unless the original author says its OK. For example, you can not translate that the comet only "damaged the surface" when it clearly says in the original dialog that it "destroyed the surface".

Are these seriously the translation problems that you people are discussing?! How about the blatant, bad English?!

[Xyex]

The same way, the translator can not translate something incorrectly, just because the original dialog seems to contradict something, unless the original author says its OK. For example, you can not translate that the comet only "damaged the surface" when it clearly says in the original dialog that it "destroyed the surface".

"Destroyed the surface" implies that there is no surface left. Not only is this shown to be false (Brolly is seen on the surface) but it's also patently impossible. So long as there is a planet there is a surface of said planet. Using "damaged" here isn't a case of mistranslation or changing anything, but a matter of using the proper word of the given language to convey the proper meaning. The surface was not literally "destroyed" but it was "damaged" completely, totally altering its appearance.

EDIT
Though, I think perhaps 'devastated' would be the better translation.

[rereboy]

The same way, the translator can not translate something incorrectly, just because the original dialog seems to contradict something, unless the original author says its OK. For example, you can not translate that the comet only "damaged the surface" when it clearly says in the original dialog that it "destroyed the surface".

"Destroyed the surface" implies that there is no surface left. Not only is this shown to be false (Brolly is seen on the surface) but it's also patently impossible. So long as there is a planet there is a surface of said planet. Using "damaged" here isn't a case of mistranslation or changing anything, but a matter of using the proper word of the given language to convey the proper meaning. The surface was not literally "destroyed" but it was "damaged" completely, totally altering its appearance.

EDIT
Though, I think perhaps 'devastated' would be the better translation.

So? That is exactly the word used in the French version. They use "détruit". Notice the similarities with the word destroy? That`s because destroy is the literal translation of the verb being used (détruire). And both verbs mean exactly the same in both languages, so there is no point in using another verb because none fits better. A more accurate translation than this does not exist.

If you don`t agree that "destroy" should have been used then you should blame the original dialog, not the translation.

Are these seriously the translation problems that you people are discussing?! How about the blatant, bad English?!

Again, that is NOT a translation problem. The original lines are just like that. The only things I would change, to be even more accurate would be change the "best enemy" to "sworn enemy" and "went through" to crossed or something to that effect. The original dialog is weird, so naturally the translation will also be weird.

[Dayspring]

The same way, the translator can not translate something incorrectly, just because the original dialog seems to contradict something, unless the original author says its OK. For example, you can not translate that the comet only "damaged the surface" when it clearly says in the original dialog that it "destroyed the surface".

"Destroyed the surface" implies that there is no surface left. Not only is this shown to be false (Brolly is seen on the surface) but it's also patently impossible. So long as there is a planet there is a surface of said planet. Using "damaged" here isn't a case of mistranslation or changing anything, but a matter of using the proper word of the given language to convey the proper meaning. The surface was not literally "destroyed" but it was "damaged" completely, totally altering its appearance.

EDIT
Though, I think perhaps 'devastated' would be the better translation.

So? That is exactly the word used in the French version. They use "détruit". Notice the similarities with the word destroy? That`s because destroy is the literal translation of the verb being used (détruire). And both verbs mean exactly the same in both languages, so there is no point in using another verb because none fits better. A more accurate translation than this does not exist.

If you don`t agree that "destroy" should have been used then you should blame the original dialog, not the translation.

Not at all. "Destroy" is like saying "totalled/devastated/damaged", sure, but in English context we don't use "destroy" like that anymore. Nowadays, something that's been destroyed is always thought to mean "fully destroyed." While linguistically you still can say "destroyed" to mean "partially destroyed," you wouldn't ever because evolution of the language has caused us to treat "destroyed" as an absolute. In French, it's still the same as saying "devastated" in that you can use it to mean partially.

In the context of the page, the comet did fully destroy the part of the surface it came in contact with, but part of the surface is not all of the surface.

Are these seriously the translation problems that you people are discussing?! How about the blatant, bad English?!

Again, that is NOT a translation problem. The original lines are just like that. The only things I would change, to be even more accurate would be change the "best enemy" to "sworn enemy" and "went through" to crossed or something to that effect. The original dialog is weird, so naturally the translation will also be weird.

Um... Isn't this exactly what you're telling us not to do? At that, "crossed Broly" is a horrible alternative to "traversed Broly." They're both used to give us "passed by" and "passed through," only "crossed Broly" then introduces the possible interpretation that the comet pissed Brolly off.

Xyex is right: it should read devastated -something that implies a shitload of damage, but not total destruction. I just felt weird saying "It wasn't destroyed, only devastated."

Direct translations don't always work. For example, "une voiture rouge" translates to "a car red," but means "a red car." You also would never say "I have to go to the W.C." in English, while you could say "J'ai besoin d'y allé au W.C." in French, even though W.C. is short for the English term "water closet" and is literally another term for "bathroom."

[Freeza Heika]

Are these seriously the translation problems that you people are discussing?! How about the blatant, bad English?!

Again, that is NOT a translation problem. The original lines are just like that. The only things I would change, to be even more accurate would be change the "best enemy" to "sworn enemy" and "went through" to crossed or something to that effect. The original dialog is weird, so naturally the translation will also be weird.

It IS a translation problem. Just being technically correct isn't enough. Translation is only 50% knowing the language. The other half is being able to write in it.

[rereboy]

Not at all. "Destroy" is like saying "totalled/devastated/damaged", sure, but in English context we don't use "destroy" like that anymore. Nowadays, something that's been destroyed is always thought to mean "fully destroyed." While linguistically you still can say "destroyed" to mean "partially destroyed," you wouldn't ever because evolution of the language has caused us to treat "destroyed" as an absolute. In French, it's still the same as saying "devastated" in that you can use it to mean partially.

In the context of the page, the comet did fully destroy the part of the surface it came in contact with, but part of the surface is not all of the surface.

I´ll concede this point simple because I think you speak better French than me.

Um... Isn't this exactly what you're telling us not to do? At that, "crossed Broly" is a horrible alternative to "traversed Broly." They're both used to give us "passed by" and "passed through," only "crossed Broly" then introduces the possible interpretation that the comet pissed Brolly off.

Xyex is right: it should read devastated -something that implies a shitload of damage, but not total destruction. I just felt weird saying "It wasn't destroyed, only devastated."

Direct translations don't always work. For example, "une voiture rouge" translates to "a car red," but means "a red car." You also would never say "I have to go to the W.C." in English, while you could say "J'ai besoin d'y allé au W.C." in French, even though W.C. is short for the English term "water closet" and is literally another term for "bathroom."

Horrible..? They are synonyms, you know... I just used crossed because its an expression more frequently used, more common, than traverse, while it still means the same. And I did say crossed or something to that effect.

Also, in the context, nobody would interpret that as if somehow the comet had irritated Brolly... . I can just see it... "God Damn you, COMET!!!"

But I will also concede this point. I`m by no means an expert on French at all, or on translation by that matter. I just think that you are all blaming the translations of theses pages for the awkwardness of the original dialog. Even with excellent translation, it still wouldn`t be great.

[Dayspring]

Um... Isn't this exactly what you're telling us not to do? At that, "crossed Broly" is a horrible alternative to "traversed Broly." They're both used to give us "passed by" and "passed through," only "crossed Broly" then introduces the possible interpretation that the comet pissed Brolly off.

Xyex is right: it should read devastated -something that implies a shitload of damage, but not total destruction. I just felt weird saying "It wasn't destroyed, only devastated."

Direct translations don't always work. For example, "une voiture rouge" translates to "a car red," but means "a red car." You also would never say "I have to go to the W.C." in English, while you could say "J'ai besoin d'y allé au W.C." in French, even though W.C. is short for the English term "water closet" and is literally another term for "bathroom."

Horrible..? They are synonyms, you know... I just used crossed because its an expression more frequently used, more common, than traverse, while it still means the same. And I did say crossed or something to that effect. Also, in the context, nobody would interpret that as if somehow the comet had irritated Brolly...

But this is the point I'm making. Direct translation gets you the terminology, but a good half of the time you also have to apply context to the situation to make it a translation that's worth reading in English. To be fair, I can't say for fact that it's like that in any translation, but it is when it comes to French-to-English (and vice-versa) translations. Like you said, "traversed" works because they're synonyms, but you wouldn't say it because it's such an awkward word choice by conventional English standards. So you change it to something that works better. In a direct translation, you would just swap the French word for the actual English equivalent, regardless of how weird it reads in English.

. I can just see it... "God Damn you, COMET!!!"

And what makes it hilarious is that, being Broly, he really would, do and say that, wouldn't he? Probably call it a "Comet-arottooooo!!!!!!!" while he was at it, too.

[rereboy]

I chose "destroyed" because honestly, the way that I interpreted the comic, I though that the comet really totally destroyed the surface of the planet, as would a real giant comet do if it fell on our planet. Mind you, it wouldn`t destroy the planet itself, but it would totally destroy its surface, meaning, everything on top of the planet. This was how I interpreted the comic. That`s why I felt that the literal translation worked perfectly.

As for crossed, I admit that upon further reflexion, it doesn`t sound very good when applied to a person.

[Xyex]

I chose "destroyed" because honestly, the way that I interpreted the comic, I though that the comet really totally destroyed the surface of the planet, as would a real giant comet do if it fell on our planet. Mind you, it wouldn`t destroy the planet itself, but it would totally destroy its surface, meaning, everything on top of the planet. This was how I interpreted the comic. That`s why I felt that the literal translation worked perfectly.

As for crossed, I admit that upon further reflexion, it doesn`t sound very good when applied to a person.

The problem is that in the common English lexicon, if something is 'destroyed' it no long exists. It's been completely and utterly wiped out and is now gone, period. So to say that it was destroyed suggests that it no longer exists as a thing, but, as I said before, it's patently impossible for the surface of a planet to stop existing, so long as the planet still exists. The original surface can be, but then a new surface is subsequently created. Thus devastated better suits the meaning here because the surface was severely damaged and reshaped, but it's still the surface.

[Scarz]

Same ol' Broly.

[Senzu_Bean]

The last page was corrected too.

[SHINOBI-03]

DOUBLE CLOTHESLINE!!

Broli can play a tag match solo.