You can't just rely on what a dictionary or thesaurus tells you without being able to seek out further collocations or being familiar with instances of the word used in translation.

And nobody on here did this, or argued that that's the right way to do things. Stop strawmanning people. I added that little sentence for a reason: "I know it will be frowned upon, but the dictionary agrees" - I knew you'd react this way, so do you seriously think that's the only reason I prefer Reichu's translation over yours? Similarly, I brought up the previous instance of you being wrong for a reason: it came attached with the same long paragraphs of explanations and linguistic justifications, the same proclamations about morals and the dangers of amateurs doing translations, the same accusations of people (or rather, me) just wanting to insert my own bias ... and yet, it turned out that I was right all along, and I stuck to my guns because my preferred translation made sense in context and because the people doing the translation provided a good explanation as for why they translated it the way they did (while also saying that the translation was rather straightforward ...).

All you provided here is another instance of a professional translator translating the phrase in question (just exchange Lilin with Angel) as "faux anges", agreeing with the translation of "pseudo-Angel" and "pseudo-Eva" (while also saying that your french friend thinks that translation would not be correct - if they wanted pseudo, they would have used pseudo, so ... eh? You are agreeing but also disagreeing?) while at the same time stating:

I don't take any particular issue with pseudo-Angel and pseudo-Eva, considering their appearance and construction.

They look differently, therefore you decide that those two instances are fine, but the third one isn't, as your own bias makes you refuse to see Shinji as similar to the Angels or Evas - when the movies outright tell us that he is. That's the context we are operating under. So you made it obvious where your bias lies ("Oh no, people might believe that the pilots are artificial!") I know Reichu's bias, too. I also know how she works, and I've seen how you work. So ... yes, I still prefer her translation.

Everything else you said, about the connotations of pseudo, and how Mari uses it to express apparent disdain, is actually completely besides the point. Is being a "pseudo-Lilin" a step up or a step down? I've got no clue, maybe both? What it does mean, though, is that Shinji is an imitation of the real thing he's currently trying to imitate: he looks like a human, but he isn't. Hence, pseudo-Lilin. The Evas in Avant 1 certainly look like Evas, yet Mari calls them "pseudo-Angels" - so they immitate Angels in function, not in form. Similarly, the pseudo-Evas actually look like Evas. So, right here, we have two instances of the same descriptor applied to different phenomena.

The point, though, is that by translating it as "you are still like the Lilin", your translation implies that Shinji was a Lilin *originally*: "You are still like them [like you were all along]" - that stands in direct contrast to what Asuka tells Rei: "We Eva pilots, just like the Evas, were constrained at the planning stage to not surpass human limitations." (A translation you will also take issue with, no doubt. And again - Shinji's special status as a non-human from the start does not only hinge on these lines: it begins with him being able to pilot at all, and there's a lot more here that I don't have the time to go into.) So, given this additional context, and the context of the scene, namely, Asuka telling Shinji the truth about himself (and Asuka is very blunt throughout the movie - she doesn't try to hide the truth or sugarcoat it) - is it more appropriate to translate what she says keeping some implication of Shinji not being a true Lilin from the start intact (whichever words we use to do it), or is it more appropriate to remove that connotation? It's the same argument we had the last time around, about whether or not to translate Midori's line to imply previous orders or not, with you being steadfast that we should not on linguistic grounds (this time around: the thesaurus lists this not all too commong meaning), when it turns out that: "yes we should", because that was the straightforward translation and it made sense in context.

There you go, that's my misinformed opinion.

Edit: Oh, forgot to add: your example of "trapdoor" is actually really nice - because it hints that, to an english speaker, the component words and their connotations are clear: everybody knows that a trapdoor is not literally a trap. But they see "trap" and they know why that word is used to describe this particular door: it's a door in the floor, so you can fall into the hole when it's opened. It's literally a door that can create a trap. (Even more clear in German, where it's "Falltür", literally "A door you can fall into", with "Fall" (fall) also being similar "Falle" (trap) - so you get both connotations at once!) To a Japanese person hearing "modoki", which this is all about, it would be entirely clear that the word can imply "fakeness" (擬似物 (gijimono) is one of the listed meanings - meaning "(something that is) giji = pseudo/fake"). So, even if the word is used in a context where it can mean something else, it is still clear that "fakeness" is associated with "modoki" - in fact, that is the most common connotation. But, again, your translation is erasing that connotation. "You are still like the Lilin" - "still like". Implication: "You are changing into something else from your previous state of being a Lilin." That's a world away even from translating it as "You are still Lilin-like", getting rid of the pseudo you dislike so much.

Edit 2: And just to be extra clear about this: I am not arguing about this to die on the Pseudo hill - I am not saying it is a perfect translation. All I am saying is that Reichu's translation is closer to a good translation than yours is, for the reasons I stated. A relative difference, not an absolute one. So if you want to get rid of pseudo: please substitute any word you feel is more appropriate in English.

You're welcome to rely on whichever translation you wish. I'm going to continue producing my work, guided by my background in Japanese and translation studies. Someday we'll get an official translation, and I'll be curious to see if I've gone in a direction congruent with what Khara accepts. After all, I don't work for them! All I can claim is my experience in the field of translation, not any sort of official Khara-sanctioned credentials.

(And please, don't pontificate on what a Japanese person would think of a word when you aren't a native speaker or Japanese yourself. It's tacky.)

Then please refrain from being smug about your own abilities and being generally abrasive, and please abstain from the grandiose lectures about moral imperatives, implying everybody besides yourself is a bumbling baffoon, who feels no need to get things right and doesnt understand things like "you can not only rely on the dictionary meaning!" or "language is important in translation." Boy, if there ever was a redundant statement.

(You know how I know what a Japanese person would think when they hear a word? They list what they think about in these things called dictionaries and thesauruses. It's how I learned English, too - that is how language works. And yes, I learned some things too from actually talking to English speakers, seeing how words are used in context. Those are additional meanings words acquire, but they don't negate the dictionary meaning. That's why I can pontificate at length what a Japanese person might think about when they hear a word - because they tell us. Curiously, you had no objection to me explaining what an English person would think about hearing the word trapdoor - even though I only used the dictionary defintion of the word "trap" in my argument, not one of the other meanings the word can take, namely, a crossdresser or transvestite hiding their identity, and I doubt that meaning is listed in the dictionary, nor did I include the musical genre of "Trap" in my list of meanings. In additon, I am most certainly not a native English speaker (I had to look up what tacky means, even though the context made it clear that it wasn't a compliment, and pontificate, too, as it's not a word I hear that often, even though, again, the context made it rather obvious what you meant). So - what makes me more qualified to talk about English here? Isn't it just as tacky telling you how your own language works? Or could it be that maybe my point stands, namely, that the word "trap" has a list of meanings, and that the word "modoki" has a list of meanings, and that a native speaker would be aware of most of those meanings whenever they hear the word, regardless of the context it is uttered in?)

But anyway, I think this has gone on long enough. I too am curious how the official translation will turn out.

Derantor wrote:

But anyway, I think this has gone on long enough. I too am curious how the official translation will turn out.

I'm particularly curious about how the use of singular & plural will turn out in a few scenes...

Nuclear Lunchbox:I don't see anybody questioning your capabilities and knowledge in Japanese.

At least what I mostly hold a problem with isn't actually your translations, but it's rather your habits. You tend to explain your choices, then reiterate them and then when pressed upon for further elaboration and discussion, you start talking about the badness of using Google Translate and dictionaries (despite the latter actually being pretty important in learning languages and you yourself having said you've leaned on dictionary and thesaurus explanations), the escapism prevalent in disliking legitimate translations and the moral imperative of translators in getting things right. This doesn't actually further discussion or explain your reasons better, especially when such arguments are made against either respectable members of the fandom either well-versed in Japanese or intelligent and well-informed enough to have their own opinions or by people you couldn't possibly have informed an opinion on. This pretty much quickly comes off as dismissal, which is why you also come off as gatekeeper-ish and dismissive. (And by "gatekeeper-ish", I don't mean "imposing quality standards", I mean "unfairly barring quality", which to my understanding is also the more dominant understanding of what gatekeepers tend to do.)