Yeah, the script is well edited, even though a few small mistakes snuck through.

By the way, just one correction: Your comment on "jealous" is not accurate, as even dictionary.com uses it the same way:


"2. feeling resentment because of another's success, advantage, etc. (often followed by of):
He was jealous of his brother's wealth."


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/jealous?s=t

As it was localized in American English, this is technically a correct way to use it. It's not a mistake.

American English using jealousy as a synonym for envy doesn't stop it from being a mistake that has creeped into the modern vernacular from how common it is. There really isn't any reason not to change it to envious when envious has purely the actual meaning wanted here.

Cerzel 님이 먼저 게시:

American English using jealousy as a synonym for envy doesn't stop it from being a mistake that has creeped into the modern vernacular from how common it is. There really isn't any reason not to change it to envious when envious has purely the actual meaning wanted here.

I understand your point, but American and British English have different rules and meanings for certain words.

It was localized in American English, and this is an accepted use of the word within these rules.

It's not a mistake. You can't argue with the dictionary. That would be like me saying British English is wrong on its use of unique meanings because it doesn't apply to American English rules.

No, it is a mistake, and it's simply a mistake that's fallen into common usage. "You can't argue with the dictionary." Why? There are many, many dictionaries out there, of widely varying academic credibility. Do you think it's not an error to use literally to mean figuratively just because that became common enough to be listed as a secondary definition in dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster?
All the dictionary does here is acknowledge that the word is commonly used for a meaning that it shouldn't rightly have, and that's a completely reasonable and valid thing for a dictionary to do in attempting to keep up with modern language. But that doesn't mean incorrectly using a word is any less incorrect, and it doesn't change that the word that actually means envy is obviously a better fit to describe envy than the word that only means envy as a result of common error and is intended to describe something entirely different.

Cerzel 님이 먼저 게시:

No, it is a mistake, and it's simply a mistake that's fallen into common usage. "You can't argue with the dictionary." Why? There are many, many dictionaries out there, of widely varying academic credibility. Do you think it's not an error to use literally to mean figuratively just because that became common enough to be listed as a secondary definition in dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster?
All the dictionary does here is acknowledge that the word is commonly used for a meaning that it shouldn't rightly have, and that's a completely reasonable and valid thing for a dictionary to do in attempting to keep up with modern language. But that doesn't mean incorrectly using a word is any less incorrect, and it doesn't change that the word that actually means envy is obviously a better fit to describe envy than the word that only means envy as a result of common error and is intended to describe something entirely different.

Yes, I think so, because language is fluid, not static, and meanings of words change over time. If you ask any linguists and people who study language, they will tell you this.

Seriously, I don't know what you are arguing about anymore. American and British English have different rules and acceptance on what is "correct" and what is not. The point is that you would have been correct if it was localized in British English, but it's not.

And for future reference, if a current dictionary accepts a new meaning of a word, it is considered "correct." But this changes over time, and this same meaning may not be correct in 20 years.

My point was pretty clear, and spelt out in the "it doesn't change that the word that actually means envy is obviously a better fit to describe envy than the word that only means envy as a result of common error and is intended to describe something entirely different" part. You're arguing that jealousy still works to mean envy as a secondary meaning, but what reason is there to specifically leave it as jealousy instead of changing it to envy? What is lost by changing the script to say envy when envy is meant instead of leaving it as jealousy?

Cerzel 님이 먼저 게시:

My point was pretty clear, and spelt out in the "it doesn't change that the word that actually means envy is obviously a better fit to describe envy than the word that only means envy as a result of common error and is intended to describe something entirely different" part. You're arguing that jealousy still works to mean envy as a secondary meaning, but what reason is there to specifically leave it as jealousy instead of changing it to envy? What is lost by changing the script to say envy when envy is meant instead of leaving it as jealousy?

Look. You are no longer arguing about what is correct and what is not. You are arguing now about "perhaps this word would be better." And this is subjective territory. You can have that opinion. I'm just saying it's technically a correct usage of the world "jealous" based on American English rules.

But about your other point, many words change in the English language because of errors of usage. It happens all the time. Words change meaning, and even revert to their opposites. That is language for you.

Many people have this mistaken notion that words remain the same and never change, but that is just not how language works. The point stands that their usage of "jealous" is correct, and doesn't need to be changed. This is not even getting into the argument that most of the text in the game is dialogue, which can allow for some incorrect usage of words, because that is the nature of how most people speak their languages. But that is another topic entirely.

"I'm just saying it's technically a correct usage of the world "jealous" based on American English rules."
It's "technically" correct because an incorrect usage has fallen into the common vernacular. I disagree with your assessment that this makes it a valid usage. And you still didn't answer the question, so I guess there's no point in continuing this discussion.

"And this is subjective territory."
"The point stands that their usage of "jealous" is correct, and doesn't need to be changed."
Their usage of jealous is only correct in American English and is based on a common error and it is rather objective that using envy to mean envy makes more sense than using jealousy to mean envy. I'm not going to ask them to put all the missing Us back in the script but using the word that means what they're trying to say would not do any harm to either British English or American English users reading the script. But it seems rather clear that you're incredibly opposed to this change, for some reason, and we're not going to see eye to eye.

Cerzel 님이 먼저 게시:

"I'm just saying it's technically a correct usage of the world "jealous" based on American English rules."
It's "technically" correct because an incorrect usage has fallen into the common vernacular. I disagree with your assessment that this makes it a valid usage. And you still didn't answer the question, so I guess there's no point in continuing this discussion.

"And this is subjective territory."
"The point stands that their usage of "jealous" is correct, and doesn't need to be changed."
Their usage of jealous is only correct in American English and is based on a common error and it is rather objective that using envy to mean envy makes more sense than using jealousy to mean envy. I'm not going to ask them to put all the missing Us back in the script but using the word that means what they're trying to say would not do any harm to either British English or American English users reading the script. But it seems rather clear that you're incredibly opposed to this change, for some reason, and we're not going to see eye to eye.

I'm just telling you your view is not in agreement with reality. The game was localized in American English, which accepts this usage of the word. Tough cookies, kid. It's not a mistake according to accepted use of American English. What can I say? You can try to change this, but it is better to flow with the changes of language than to get stuck in the past.

Why does it matter if it arose out of a "common error" as you say? This is how language adapts throughout time. And for the record, I'm not against the change, I'm simply arguing that you are wrong when you say that it is not correct.

Jealous is a synonym of envious. It has become this way in American English. You can refuse to accept it all you want, but it doesn't change that it has become an accepted usage. And when you say "it is wrong," in fact, it is you who are wrong, when speaking about the rules of American English.

But what can I say? You will continue to not see reality in this issue. I have even provided you proof via the dictionary. I have also checked Mirriam Webster along with Dictionary.com, and they both have the same usage listed. What else can I say?

"And for the record, I'm not against the change"
Glad we could agree.

You must not be very familiar with colloquial American English. In the first screenshot, swapping "Jealous?" with "Envious?" just sounds completely wrong in context; nobody talks like that in everyday conversation, especially for someone like Imeon whose manner of speech is really informal. Now the second screenshot with Michel I can agree with.

If I were to complain about colloquial American English I would be taking issues with every sentence that Ceren speaks, but I'm not. I'm specifically only touching on jealousy because it's based on an erroneous use of the word. I don't think being colloquial particularly defends that, since it's not like Ceren is going around using words wrong all the time either.

"Jealousy" is just a less formal synonym of "envy". But judging by the above conversation you had, you're not gonna accept that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There is an argument to be had that perhaps using less American slang/colloquial language would have benefited the translation, as sometimes it does feel out of place in a game set roughly around the Middle Ages in Europe. But really, all attempts at language would merely be an attempt at immitating authenticity, but not reaching it, simply because these places would be speaking different languages and in colloquial forms long lost. Also, a lot of American filmmakers tend to just default to "they speak with a British accent" to make it sound authentic, which is also equally silly.

That said...eh, this is what they decided to do, and it doesn't hinder the impact of the story, in my opinion. In particular, the parts that are narrated are quite well written, and most characters have distinct personalities and character progression, which is enough to satisfy me.