Made in Abyss – 01 [BD]


Who knew Sentai could actually translate?

Our script is based off Scum’s (which is basically completely untouched Sentai with added OP/ED trans and typesetting) but both TLCed and edited by our in-house translator. Scene filtered encodes by good guy joletb with typesetting from KoolKidsK with assistance/guidance from Govna. The native resolution of the lineart seems all over the place so we’re leaving it at 1080p.

Diffcheck

Oh, and we plan on doing the making of episode one live action thingy too. We hope you look forward to our releases!

Torrent
XDCC trigger: !mia01

Base Script: Scum (Sentai untouched, basically)
OP/ED trans: Areki
Edit: 秘密ですわ
TLC: 秘密ですわ
TS: KoolKidsK
Timing: KoolKidsK
Styling: joletb
Encode: joletb
QC: joletb
Special thanks: Govna

11 comments

    1. Our translator didn’t change the lines based on the English. She changed them based on the Japanese. We already cleared up the “it’s” thing over IRC but as for the “of” -> “on”, it’s not a stylistic thing in Japanese as far as I understand. Our translator will probably follow up but yeah, it wasn’t meant to be stylistic. The analogy that you gave over irc (City of fire vs City on fire.) isn’t very good and doesn’t work in this case because it’s not how the line would work in Japanese. の/no in Japanese works like “A is a quality of B.” It’s very dumb to translate の as “of” every time because in a lot of cases, it doesn’t make sense to or doesn’t actually mean “of.” For example, if someone says “anta no baka,” it shouldn’t be translated as “idiot of you.” Just because “city of the big pit” happens to sound correct this time doesn’t mean it’s the only way it could be put in English or even the way it /should/ be put in English especially because の doesn’t exactly mean “of” as shown above. Example: 高台の建物 (takadai no tatemono) doesn’t mean “building of high ground.” (or rather, that’s not how you would put it in English) It would be “building ON high ground. You can learn more about the の particle here if you’re curious http://www.imabi.net/theparticleno.htm

      EDIT: typos/correction

    1. I’ll just copy/paste what I told the other guy.

      Our translator didn’t change the lines based on the English. She changed them based on the Japanese. Our translator will probably follow up. の/no in Japanese works like “A is a quality of B.” It’s very dumb to translate の as “of” every time because in a lot of cases, it doesn’t make sense to or doesn’t actually mean “of.” For example, if someone says “anta no baka,” it shouldn’t be translated as “idiot of you.” Just because “city of the big pit” happens to sound correct this time doesn’t mean it’s the only way it could be put in English or even the way it /should/ be put in English especially because の doesn’t exactly mean “of” as shown above. Example: 高台の建物 (takadai no tatemono) doesn’t mean “building of high ground.” (or rather, that’s not how you would put it in English) It would be“building ON high ground. You can learn more about the の particle here if you’re curious http://www.imabi.net/theparticleno.htm

      EDIT: typos/correction

      1. Except the city is not literally on the pit. It’s around it. I am having a hard time visualizing/conceptualizing what “The City on the Great Pit” even means. The pit is not a mountain, a field, a volcano, a plain, a dune, a hill or anything else that you can physically put something on so that qualifier shouldn’t be used when referring to something in relation to a pit (or any of its synonyms: abyss, chasm, crevasse, depth, fissure, gorge, gulf, hole, void). It really has nothing to do with the translation but rather, what makes sense in English and in this case, putting something on top of a pit or abyss or fissure or hole doesn’t make any sense. I think your translator thought too hard and made a change just for the sake of making changes where no change was actually needed (everyone understood just fine what “The City of the Great Pit” meant even if that might not be the exact 1:1 Japanese equivalent).
        tl;dr:
        “The City of the Great Pit” –> “there is a city with a pit somewhere in it”
        “The City on the Great Pit” –> “there is a city and… it floats above the pit? It’s somehow suspended on or above the pit?”
        I know what you’re going for: “‘on’ definition #7: (used to indicate immediate proximity):
        a house on the lake” but it really doesn’t work in the same context with “pit”. Or at least not to me. Do what you want.

        1. The city is actually on the topmost layer of the Abyss ’cause it’s inside the crater. Plus I decided to go with “on” the pit because of spoilers.
          “City of the Great Pit” does not make sense on a grammatical level for what the title is supposed to be—even if you can get a feel for what is meant by “of.” It implies that the Abyss created the city, which, on a symbolic level is true, but is not in actuality. You could argue that “of” means the city reveres the pit, so “of” might be suitable, but, again, for spoilers, I decided to use “on.” And, yes, it works similarly to “on the water”; it sounds weird only because it’s unusual to use “on the pit” (or the word “pit” in general.)

          Honestly, using “of” just opens a whole can of philosophical arguments I’m not sure the writers intended (since this is an argument of English grammar in a Japanese context), so it’s easier to make it clear in this way.

          1. “Honestly, using “of” just opens a whole can of philosophical arguments I’m not sure the writers intended (since this is an argument of English grammar in a Japanese context), so it’s easier to make it clear in this way.” – Changing on to of? In 5 lines? Whole can of philosophical arguments? It’s still not on the pit. Maybe you could say it’s in the pit or at the pit, but it won’t happen anytime soon, that it will be on the pit. While “of” the pit wouldn’t even lead to this useless discussion.

    1. Hi guys! maybe im a year late to post in this thread but do you ever consider that “City of the Great Pit” is an Alias and not a Grammatical Definition/deliberation of words? it would make sense if it’s an AKA/alias right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *