"Third Child" sounds far better than "Third Children", of course, but the latter is the canonical term. Unless it's proven that the canonical term was based on a grammatical error and not a deliberate creation, we don't have any grounds to change it.
I think it's more complicated than that. In translating Japanese (which includes the Japanese use of English), there is the importance of both translation and adaptation, but these two elements are sometimes at odds and the solution becomes a subjective matter, hence the controversy and debate that arises over things like this. While it may seem logical to retain English words used in Japanese when translating—they are, after all, in English!—the problem is that English words don't always have the same implications in Japanese that they do in English. For example, the word "group" in Japanese can have a militaristic applicability that it doesn't have in English. So strangely, a more accurate translation of the intended meaning in some cases would be to use a word like "squad," even though this would mean trading one English word for another.
Anyone please speak up if you know better, but my understanding is that when a Japanese speaker hears the English word "children," that word to them doesn't carry with it the same level of explicit plurality as it does to an English speaker. They could interpret it as "child," whereas we would never do that. So using the canonical Japanese term in Japanese slips a hidden meaning under the radar without raising any definite red flags. However, choosing to adhere to the word "children" in an English translation changes the narrative. The plurality raises an immediate question to English speakers—and one that is strangely never acknowledged in the narrative in a way that patches the logic together—and the viewer is left wondering why plurality is assigned to each pilot, or left assuming it's a mistranslation instead of questioning the possibility of a deeper meaning.
And this is what I mean by that:
Mjolnir Mark IV wrote:
If we're meant to think that the use of "children" is an intentional part of the narrative, isn't it strange that in a story with so many secrets, outright lies, and massive coverups, that Nerv would just go and hang that "children" title out there like that? The whole scandal with the replacement Reis is a closely kept secret until episode 23. And isn't it also strange that Shinji never once questions why each of the pilots are referred to as "children" and not "child"?
He does, after all, ask a lot of questions, as one would in his position.
Mjolnir Mark IV wrote:
Initially referring to Rei as children makes perfect sense—at least for the people who actually created them. But keeping that title for everyone to see instead of changing it does not.
What would make sense is if "First Children" was short for "First of the Children," and then "Second of the Children," and so forth. That would have been a slick coverup for the initial reason for the title. But there's no mention of this
So it's either "children" or "child," depending on whether you want the viewer to misunderstand the intended meaning 100% of the time—"children"—or question it 0% of the time: "child."
My personal opinion is that when a translation requires the audience to research the original language in order to understand the translation, it's a failure in translation.
thanks to all of you who spent time working on these subs one question though, can someone explain the movies of evangelion? I Remember someone saying they're a reboot?
After the series, Death and Ribirth
and The End of Evangelion
were released. The Death portion of D&R is a recap of the series with some important narrative additions and artistic musical interludes. In terms of understanding the story, if you watch the Director's Cut of episodes 21–24, then there's no real point in watching Death, as all of the most crucial additions in Death are included in the DC episodes. And if you watch The End of Evangelion, there's no point in watching Rebirth, as it's essentially just the first part of The EoE.
For most of the TV ending, we're seeing inside the characters' heads and catching glimpses of reality. The EoE is much more literal in showing the reality of the situation. While both the TV ending and movie ending are philosophical and have numerous parallels, they are quite different endings. The EoE punctuates the climax of the story with intense action and drama, rather than focusing on inward revelations.
Also check out the project I did for The End of Evangelion. It's different in that it's a fansub, but it's meant to be a companion project to this one in that the look of the subtitles is the same, and it has consistent terminology and some of the same translations for some of the recurring phrases.Download The End of Evangelion Fansub AmalgamationDiscussion TopicWebsite
Years later, the movie series Rebuild of Evangelion
was started. You can think of it as a reboot, but it's probably more complicated than that. It starts off close to the original, but diverges the further along it progresses. The final film in this newer series has yet to be released.
Seems like I overlooked the completion of this project in the midst of everything else happening. It's awesome to see this. Congratulations!
Thank you! I'm getting flashbacks of the end of episode 26, which definitely had a double meaning for me when I transcribed the series, because it was the final part of the final episode that I did.
UrsusArctos wrote:(A Chiss Grand Admiral of the Galactic Empire and a Mjolnir Mark IV battleroid walk into a bar...sorry, couldn't resist!)