[18+ Board] - [YP Home] - [Project Status] - [YP Wiki] - [Burichan] [Futaba] [Gurochan] [Photon] - [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
Link
Subject
Comment
File
Password (for post and file deletion)
  • [General Discussion] [Request]
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD, TXT
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.

File: Hirari Vol. 6, page 007.png -(449130 B, 1772x2478) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
449130 No.2511  

First chapter of a seires serialised in Hirari. 24 pages.

TL: http://www.mediafire.com/?8jqp0e5a69ovr92

Signing up as editor.

>> No.4602  

I translated the first chapter.
I intend to translate the second chapter too.

>> No.4612  

where is the first chapter?

>> No.4616  

>>4612
If you mean the raw manga by the first chapter, I think the link is still in this thread.
If you mean the translation I haven't uploaded yet.

>> No.4619  

was translation
thank you for answer

>> No.4622  

I have traslated the second chapter.

I was kind of disappointed when I read the first chapter because the story is somewhat a typical and banal yuri story.
But in the second chapter the story is getting better, which is expected of the author, and kind of reminds me of ハナツマミ姫(the author's short story version of Indian Bride).
I'm looking forward to chapter #3.

>> No.4627  

>>4622
I've made a separated thread for chapter 2 and uploaded chapter 3.
#2 >>4625
#3 >>4626

>> No.8150  

Signing up for editor if translation ever gets posted

>> No.20210  

So this caught my eye, and I ended up cleaning it. Hopefully, someone will translate this and the other two parts.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/dhyqlf0ie9are8s/Blueprints_for_a_Girl_Cleans.zip

>> No.20438  
File: blueprints_1.txt -(16538 B, 0x0) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

So I heard you liek sisters

>> No.20446  

I'll typeset if thats fine.

>> No.20451  

>>20438
>>20446

Thanks guys! I'll do the QC. I can't wait!

>> No.20452  

>>20446

Oh, you can erase part of the duplicate layer so that the japanese title will show. I forgot I erased that, but I didn't erase it on the other two parts.

>> No.20558  

>>20446

Are you still going to typeset this? If not, I'll go ahead and do it.

>> No.20567  

>>20558
sorry for taking so long, ive been really busy the past month. i got the first chapter and half of the second basically done. ill get the first chapter uploaded by tomorrow.

>> No.20568  

And here it is:
https://puu.sh/vPuGc/10b4fad87b.rar

I'll try to finish typesetting 2 and 3 by Friday.

>> No.20569  

A few notes on the text:

02.png

Yeah! Long time, no see, Kana-chan! -> Kana-chan? (looks like a copy-paste error)

06.png

Last bubble missing ellipsis

07.png

elemen-tary -> element-ary

17.png

You're a bit too late... -> It's a bit late for that... (This read poorly, and I want to change it)

And I'm sure musicgod96 will put in a word, as well.

Thank you for your work.

>> No.20570  
File: blueprints1_qc1.txt -(2043 B, 0x0) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>>20568

No worries. I've been a bit busy as well with exams and Persona 5 haha

>> No.20576  

https://puu.sh/vStr4/de257b4873.rar

>> No.20577  

Could you make the "You're a bit too late..." -> "It's a bit late for that..." substitution on 17.png?

>> No.20578  
File: 17.png -(691247 B, 1397x2000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
691247

Wow I don't know how I missed that. Here it is.

>> No.20581  

>>20576

pg18

-p1,b3,aside
add period

pg22

-p2,b2
add comma to end

-p2,b3
Could -> could

Question to Multiball:

I noticed that in your translations, when you end a sentence with "either", you put a comma before the word. I've noted to remove it because I don't usually add that comma in my own writings. I was just wondering about your reasoning behind that comma. And if you wanted, the commas can be added back in.

>> No.20582  

https://puu.sh/vTpwO/206899d6bb.rar

>> No.20583  

>>20581

I see the word "either" occur in three places in my translation of this chapter:

> There's no bed, either...
> I'm not fond of low tables, either...
> And I don't believe in female friendship, either.

The fundamental answer to your question is probably that I simply tend to use a lot of commas. In some cases, I'll look back on something I wrote, and see that, again, I've slapped a bunch of clauses together, sometimes in fairly awkward manner, and wonder how I ended up, once again, with so many of them in the same sentence. If there's a place where a comma is optional, I'll probably opt to include one.

A few cursory references that came up on an Internet search suggest that this particular comma—before an adverb that modifies an entire sentence or clause—is falling out of favor, and it's increasingly common to see it omitted. Given that, it's probably safe to leave it as a matter of taste if you include it or not, but I do have some æsthetic grounds for preferring to include it.

If a modifying word or phrase occurs in the middle of another phrase, it's common to surround the modifying word or phrase with commas.
Consider:

> He wasn't the richest, either, having not a cent to his name.
> She didn't want to go, either, but it was the only option.

But "either" is sort of hard to fit into the middle of a phrase. There are similar words that occur medially more often:

> I, too, hear the call.
> The cat, as well, was eyeing the fish.

"Either," as its used in my translation for this chapter, seems to me to belong to the same class of modifiers as "too" and "as well," as they're used above. They come out a bit stilted, but you can reformulate the phrases in this translation that use "either" to use "too" instead:

> A bed, too, is absent...
> Low tables, too, are a thing I'm not fond of...
> Female friendship, too, is something I don't believe in.

These phrases seem odd (at least to me) without commas:

> A bed too is absent...
> Low tables too are a thing I'm not fond of...
> Female friendship too is something I don't believe in.

They don't seem quite as odd without commas if you use "as well" instead of "too," but I still miss them:

> A bed as well is absent...
> Low tables as well are a thing I'm not fond of...
> Female friendship as well is something I don't believe in.

So it makes sense to me to preserve the comma even if the modifier is at the end of the sentence:

> There's no bed, too...
> Low tables are a thing I'm not fond of, as well...
> And I don't believe in female friendship, either.

Additionally, if the modifying clause is longer than one word, the comma seems even more necessary to me:

> There's no bed, either soft or hard...
> Low tables are a thing I'm not fond of, either with cushions or without...
> And I don't believe in female friendship, either casual or intimate.

So it makes sense to me to keep the comma even if the modifying clause is a single adverb.

At this point, I'm very tempted to link this to restrictive clauses versus unrestrictive clauses, but I don't know if I can really justify the connection. If you're interested to hear my ideas there, just say, and I'll be glad to share.

I couldn't really find a place to fit this in, but I also like the comma because it mirrors the prosody I hear when I read the lines. I hear a pause right before the "either," which is a sign to me that a comma belongs there. The pause is even more exaggerated in my ears when a modifier occurs medially.

I hope that answers your question. One slightly ironic thing is that you keep putting commas on phrases that end in the next speech bubble, which is a practice I typically avoid. It would seem that our tastes are inverses of each other in these two respects.

>> No.20585  

>>20583

I feel I've just learned more about English grammar than I did in high school haha. I guess for me, there had never been a situation where the word "either" ended a sentence, nor been in the middle of one. But I also can't really think of a situation where "either" was in the middle and not followed by an independent clause or an -ing clause/thing. You had an example of it.

> He wasn't the richest, either, having not a cent to his name.

I don't know what the clause/thing is called, but it starts with those -ing words, and I usually put commas before those. When you ignore that second half of the sentence, it would be as though "either" was at the end of the sentence. Normally, I wouldn't add the comma before the word just because of how it looks to me. But the comma does put more emphasis on the word. I guess for me, I never needed that much emphasis.

For "too," I would also put commas around and before it. For "as well," I wouldn't put a comma before it if it was at the end of a sentence (again, for aesthetic reasons). I don't usually put "as well" in the middle of a sentence because it sometimes sounds odd to me. Instead, I would use the word "also."

> The cat, as well, was eyeing the fish.

The cat was also eyeing the fish.

> Female friendship as well is something I don't believe in.

Female friendship is also something I don't believe in.

But if I were to use "as well" and it was before the verb, I would add those commas. But if it was after the object of the sentence, I probably wouldn't add commas.

> I have been busy as well with exams and Persona 5.
> I, as well, have been busy with exams and Persona 5.

Maybe location plays a part, or maybe just what you want to put emphasis on.

>Additionally, if the modifying clause is longer than one word, the comma seems even more necessary to me

I, too, agree with this. Yet, if it was just the modifying clause, I probably wouldn't add the comma. That's confusing to me and makes me rethink my whole argument. sigh

>One slightly ironic thing is that you keep putting commas on phrases that end in the next speech bubble, which is a practice I typically avoid. It would seem that our tastes are inverses of each other in these two respects.

Haha, it would seem so. Personally, I don't like when text in a bubble don't end in some kind of punctuation, unless it breaks in the middle.

>At this point, I'm very tempted to link this to restrictive clauses versus unrestrictive clauses, but I don't know if I can really justify the connection. If you're interested to hear my ideas there, just say, and I'll be glad to share.

Share it. It's interesting to know all this English stuff that high schools don't delve too deep into.

>> No.20587  

>>20585

The one high school activity that taught me more about English grammar than any other was studying French. Seeing how phrases were assembled in another language gave me a new perspective on how they worked in English, and French was similar enough to provide a lot of relevant contrast. Aside from that, my number one source of knowledge of English grammar is my father. He's the one that taught me about restrictive and non-restrictive clause. (Restricting clause and non-restricting clause? I don't feel like looking it up right now.)

The difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause is the difference between "which" and "that," and it also affects whether or not you need commas around the clause. An "restrictive clause" is a dependent clause that modifies something by specifying which of a number of possible referents is being talked about. An "non-restrictive clause" is a dependent clause that provides additional detail about the phrase it modifies, but specify exactly what the referent is.

Examples:

Non-restrictive clause:

> The book, which was on the table, was blue.

Restrictive clause:

> The book that was on the table was blue.

As evidenced by these examples, a non-restrictive clause is begun with the word "which," and is surrounded by commas, whereas a restrictive clause is begun with the word "that," and is not surrounded by commas.

The semantic difference between these two phrases is the number of books in question. In the example with the unrestricted clause, there is no question about which book is being discussed. There is one book: "The book." The clause "was on the table" describes this book without distinguishing it from any other book, because there was only one book in question. In the example with the restrictive clause, there is more than one book that might have been the topic. By adding the clause "was on the table," we provide context to specify which book we're talking about: the book that was on the table, and not the book that was on the shelf.

This is sort of difficult to explain, and it's sort of difficult to understand. It had to be explained to me on a couple different occasions before I was really able to wrap my head around it. The idea is that if you're singling something out from a group, the clause you use to do that is restrictive. If there is no group, but only a single possible referent, then the clause is non-restrictive.

Identifying a clause as restrictive or non-restrictive can imply otherwise unspecified details:

Non-restrictive:

> My mother, Jess, was a university graduate.

Because the modifyng clause (the mother's name) is surrounded by commas, we know this is a non-restrictive clause. This is a signal that that I have only one mother, Jess.

Restrictive:

> My mother Jess was a university graduate.

Because the modifying clause (the mother's name) is not surrounded by commas, we know that this is a restrictive clause. That implies that I have more than one mother. If I wanted to talk about my other mother in the same sentence, I might extend it:

> My mother Jess was a university graduate, but my mother Kate dropped out.

I hope that example gives an idea of what distinguishes a restrictive clause from a non-restrictive clause. The restrictive clause provides context to specify exactly which thing is being spoken of.

> The book that was on the table was blue, and the book that was on the shelf was red.

Here, the "was on the ____" clauses distinguish the books from one another, clarifying the topic of each phrase. These are restrictive clauses; accordingly, they begin with the word "that" and are not surrounded by commas.

> The book, which was on the table, was blue, and the lamp, which was on the shelf, was red.

Here, the "was on the ____" clauses do not distinguish the book from any other book (there having been only one book in question), nor the lamp from any other lamp (there having been only one lamp in question). These are non-restrictive clauses; accordingly, they begin with the word "which," and are surrounded by commas.

I like to adapt a popular adage about a different grammatical topic and say, "The difference restrictive clauses and non-restrictive clauses is the difference between helping your uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle, Jack, off a horse." Clearly, the difference in meaning (having multiple uncles, one of which is named Jack, versus having a single uncle named Jack) isn't as evocative as in the more popular formulation about capitalization, but it's an interesting subtlety that's helped me organize my English thoughts a bit better now that I've internalized it. I hope that my explanation wasn't too rambling or long-winded, and that the examples actually helped.

Having explained that (or having at least tried), I'm not sure if this /really/ relates to why I like the comma before "either" at the end of a phrase. I feel like I ought to be able to claim that the modifying "either" constitutes an non-restrictive clause, but that seems like a bit of a stretch. I am able to come up with phrases that have a medial "either" and don't need a comma:

> I don't care either one way or the other.
> The car is either red or blue.

But similarly, I'm hesitant to declare these to be restrictive clauses. I can claim that in these examples, "either" introduces two options that restrict the possible referents for things I might care about and colors the car might be, respectively, but I feel like we're getting a little far afield. It might be worth pointing out that you could replace "either" with "that" in these examples:

> I don't care that it is one way, or that it is the other way.
> The car is that red color, or it is that blue color.

Which would suggest that it's serving some restrictive function, seeing as "that" is used to introduce restrictive clauses. From there, you can claim an "either" that could be replaced by a medial modifier like "too" or "as well," which would both be surrounded by commas, serves an analogously non-restrictive function, and should retain the comma even if it occurs at the end of the phrase.

But fundamentally, use of an adverb to modify the entire phrase seems like a sort of different case to me than restrictive or non-restrictive clauses. While it's true that the terminal "either" doesn't serve a restrictive function, it seems a bit of a stretch to claim that that means that it must therefore be serving a non-restrictive function, and so should have a comma.

Given that practices differ widely enough even among reputable publications that tend to care about this sort of thing, I think that it's probably safe not to try to pin down which approach is "correct" or even "standard" by convention. While I do, æsthetically, prefer the comma, I don't think there's any strong case to be made that you shouldn't omit it.

I hope you enjoyed that explanation. If you're still confused, I'm willing to try to address whatever confuses you.

>> No.20590  

>>20587

After your explanation, things started to make sense in my head. About the mother example, I've always been confused on whether or not to put commas around the name, but that example really explained things. And there were terms for those types of clauses. Man, I feel so enlightened! Haha.

About the book example, couldn't one just remove "that" and "which" all together and still get the same meaning across?

> The book on the table was blue, and the book on the shelf was red.
> The book on the table was blue, and the lamp on the shelf was red.

To me, they mean the same. I can't find a reason to use one method over the other except for preference.

Honestly, I don't completely understand your explanation, but it does clear a lot stuff I already sort of knew. I probably just have to see more of the restrictive and non-restrictive clauses in action to fully wrap my head around it.

As for the commas before "either," I still personally wouldn't add it, maybe half of the time. You make a convincing argument on why it should be included, so I've begun to see your way of thinking. I'm all good if those commas were to be added back in.

>> No.20591  

>>20590

I'm glad that my explanations should have provided at least a clue. Being an aficionado of words and grammar, I'm always happy to talk about issues of style and correctness.

You're correct that those examples don't need the "which" or the "that." Including them or not is a matter of style.

For vanity and vindication, I'd be glad to have the commas reinserted, but I don't think it's worth holding up the release for.

>> No.20597  

Here it is with the commas back in.
https://puu.sh/vWC5h/0b7720539f.rar

>> No.20605  

>>20597
It's not like my being pretty had anything do with why their appearance was below average. =>
It's not like my being pretty had anything do with why their appearance being below average.

>> No.20606  

>>20605

Procyon, I feel that I must challenge you on this alteration. A clause beginning with "why" is independent, and doesn't need to be parallel with the first. The phrase "It's not like my being pretty had anything to do with why their appearance being below average" doesn't parse, because "their appearance being below average" doesn't function independently. You could rephrase it as "It's not like my being pretty had anything to do with their appearance being below average," and I wouldn't contest that alteration. I contend that the original is at least grammatically correct, and I do not believe that the proposed alteration is.

>> No.20607  

>>20606
Ah I see, I completely skipped over the word 'why'.

>> No.20609  

>>20597
Released.

>> No.20611  
File: 08.png -(133008 B, 690x514) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
133008

blueprints for a girl
pg 08, "my being pretty had nothing do" should be "nothing to do".

>> No.20614  

>>20611
fixed
https://puu.sh/w4q5P/b5aac5e1e0.png

>> No.20622  

>>20614
Updated.



Delete Post []
Password