- 856
- 274
Arguments are currently being worked on so I suggest waiting before making any claims imo.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Saint Seiya - Practically Everyone Is 2-A Addition (well not really lol)
- Thread starter TheUnshakableOne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- saint seiya
- Status
- 9,994
- 10,850
Ouch-
- 6,507
- 1,721
- Thread starter
- #44
equivocation logical fallacy
Equivocation is a logical fallacy that occurs when the meaning of a word or phrase is shifted in the middle of an argument to support a specific conclusion. In the example provided:
"全 means the entirety just as often. Literally if you just look into it, 全宇宙, 90% of the time means the entire universe."
The fallacy lies in the assumption that the word "全" has the same fixed meaning in all contexts, which is "entirety" or "whole." The person making this argument presents "全宇宙" as an example to support their claim, asserting that it "90% of the time means the entire universe."
However, this argument ignores the possibility that the word "全" may have other meanings or nuances depending on the context in which it is used. It fails to consider that words can have multiple definitions, and their meaning can vary depending on the specific situation or language usage.
For instance, while "全宇宙" might indeed be translated as "entire universe" in many instances, it is essential to recognize that language is not always so rigid. Different contexts, cultural differences, and even changes over time can introduce variations in how words are used.
To avoid the fallacy of equivocation, a fair and accurate approach is to consider all possible definitions of the word "全" and evaluate each instance of its use within its specific context. One cannot simply assume that it always means "entirety" without considering potential exceptions or alternative meanings.
hmm lets point out some issues with the argument being used here.
- Contradictions within the opponents counter arguments: The person claims that the content posted is from other series not written by Kurumada, which contradicts what Next Dimension says. This suggests that the information from the other series is not valid or reliable, yet they still use it to support their argument.
- Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The person mentions that "Next Dimension" (presumably a work by Kurumada) is more valid or authoritative than other series not written by him. While it is reasonable to consider the original creator's work as primary, dismissing information solely because it comes from other writers is an appeal to authority fallacy. In addition to that, there is a detailed canoncity blog here which is was accepted on past CRTs with information for all spinoffs being canon and cross-scaling being valid, https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:TheUnshakableOne/sandbox
- False Dilemma Fallacy: The person presents a false dilemma by stating that if changing the past were not possible, it would mean that Athena failed to change the past, not that she went to a different universe to change it. This oversimplifies the possibilities and excludes other potential explanations for the events.
- Ad Hominem Fallacy: The person questions the coherence of the idea that past, present, and future are different universes, labeling it as an "oxymoron." However, they fail to provide substantive arguments against this concept and instead resort to attacking the idea itself without addressing its merits.
- Cherry-Picking: The person selects certain elements from the story to support their argument while ignoring other aspects that may contradict their claims. For example, they dismiss the possibility of different universes for past, present, and future despite acknowledging that "if they somehow actually were," it wouldn't change how the term "universe" is used, which implies they are not considering all relevant aspects.
- Potential Hypocrisy: The person accuses others of contradicting the story's plot, character motives, and dialogue, but they themselves seem to cherry-pick evidence to fit their argument while dismissing or ignoring other relevant information.
Aight lets do this again.
- Straw Man Fallacy: The person is attacking a straw man by Claiming that the opposing argument asserts "time travel doesn't work." However, the original argument does not explicitly state that time travel is entirely impossible; it merely points out potential contradictions and inconsistencies in the specific series.
- Cherry-Picking: The person seems to cherry-pick certain elements from the series to support their argument while disregarding or downplaying other relevant information. They focus on certain instances of time travel being shown in the series but fail to address the inconsistencies or contradictions raised by the original argument.
- Non Sequitur: The person's statement "That doesn't really matter, because he nonetheless only describes the power to distort the order of the universe and create a chain reaction where the universe corrodes over time" does not logically follow the preceding context. It appears to be unrelated to the main discussion and doesn't address the criticisms of the time travel concept raised in the previous statement.
- Appeal to Ignorance: The person uses the fact that the story isn't over and that the outcome of Athena's actions in Next Dimension remains to be seen as a reason to dismiss criticisms or contradictions pointed out in the series. This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy, as the lack of evidence for or against an event doesn't automatically prove or disprove its validity.
- Contradiction: The person argues that the story from Next Dimension suggests that time travel is possible, but they also mention that "Future seemingly didn't change (in that series)." This seems contradictory because if time travel were successful, one would expect some change in the future.
- Potential Hypocrisy: The person criticizes the original argument for contradictions and fallacies but seems to engage in similar practices themselves, such as straw man fallacy and cherry-picking
Appeal to authority -
Using Shady as an authority figure, stating that "Even Shady translated this scene as 'entire universe.'" By citing Shady's translation, they are implying that it must be correct because Shady is considered knowledgeable or reputable in the context of translation.
However, appealing to Shady's translation does not necessarily provide evidence that the interpretation is accurate or that "全宇宙" refers exclusively to the entire universe rather than all universes. It disregards the need for a more comprehensive analysis of the context
Again, Japanese language is a context heavy language, and translators i literally speed running translations as soon as they come out, practically within hours they have a translation ready after the release of a chapter.
I already provided the context why its "All universes" within the blog,
yet you didn't provide the Japanese raw.
- Cherry-Picking: The opponent seems to cherry-pick specific phrases and interpretations that support their argument while ignoring other possible meanings or contextual evidence that might contradict their claim.
- Appeal to Common Usage Fallacy: The person asserts that 全体 (ぜんたい, "whole" or "entire") only means "entire" in any case, without considering that words can have different meanings or nuances depending on the context in which they are used.
- Hasty Generalization: The person generalizes by stating that "as almost always, 全宇宙 here simply means entire universe," without providing substantial evidence to support this claim. Making a generalization based on limited examples can lead to errors in interpretation.
- Non Sequitur: The person's statement about the distortion of the universe being caused by Athena's attempt to change future events does not logically follow the previous context. It appears to be unrelated to the main discussion about the meaning of 全宇宙 and the interpretation of the story.
- Confirmation Bias: The person seems to have a confirmation bias by focusing on specific evidence that supports their preconceived interpretation while neglecting or downplaying evidence that may contradict it.
- Potential Hypocrisy: The person accuses others of interpreting phrases to their "highest possible and uncommon meaning," but they seem to do the same, albeit in the opposite direction, by interpreting 全宇宙 as "entire universe" without considering alternative interpretations based upon the context.
- Straw Man Fallacy: The person dismisses interpretations that might consider 全宇宙 to refer to multiple universes as interpreting the phrase to its "highest possible and uncommon meaning," creating a straw man of the opposing viewpoint.
- Logical Fallacy: The person argues that the lack of effect on other universes after the distortion of one universe confirms that the phrase 全宇宙 refers only to the entire universe. However, this argument does not logically prove that the phrase cannot refer to multiple universes.
- Cherry-Picking: The person appears to cherry-pick certain information to support their argument while disregarding or ignoring other relevant context that might contradict their claim. They focus solely on the lack of context indicating the phrase refers to the entire multiverse, without considering other evidence or interpretations.
- Straw Man Fallacy: The person sets up a straw man by suggesting that the opposing viewpoint requires one to "reach for the sky and ignore everything shown in the story to think anything about all universes was mentioned here."
- Hasty Generalization: The person generalizes by stating that there is "0 context" indicating the phrase refers to the entire multiverse, without considering the possibility that context may exist but has not been addressed or explored thoroughly, or the opponent is choosing to ignore it.
- False Dichotomy: The person seems to present a false dichotomy between the idea of the past and future being universes and the concept that anything about all universes was mentioned.
- Potential Hypocrisy: The person accuses the opposing side of ignoring everything shown in the story, but they themselves seem to ignore or downplay information provided in the debate that suggests multiple universes being affected.
- Potential Contradiction: The person claims that there is "0 context indicating it refers to the entire multiverse," while earlier in the debate, they seemed to admit or suggest that more than one universe is being affected by time travel or distortions caused by it.
- Potential Misrepresentation: If the person is aware of the evidence or arguments provided by the opposing side that suggest multiple universes being affected, their claim of "0 context" could be seen as a misrepresentation of the overall debate.
- Potential Personal Attack: The person's statement could be interpreted as a personal attack against the opposing viewpoint by implying that it requires reaching for the sky and ignoring everything shown in the story, rather than addressing the arguments directly.
2-A Range.
My final thoughts for this counter argument
Saint Seiya: Next Dimension sets up a contradiction within itself. Time traveling to change history, but instead resulted in the destruction of the Universe. The Story goes back and forth, but as presented in the Cosmology blog. You cannot use time travel to change history.
Even in Saint Seiya Episode G Assassins Time attempts to heal its wounds and repair itself to the proper course of history.
The opponent has admitted that multiple Universes are being affected thus his argument is shaky, and the context he was advocating for changes to "All Universe." He also admitted too a major contradiction within his own argument
They said earlier in their comment
Then in the same comment he then says
Then shortly after in the same comment
the opponent does seem to indicate that more than one universe is being affected by time travel, or distortions.
In the first statement, the opponent mentions the "distortion of the order of the universe," which could imply that it's limited to a single universe. The second statement clarifies that the distortion of the universe is being caused by Athena's attempt to change future events by messing with the space-time of a timeline.
The third statement explicitly mentions that they "literally even temporarily go to other nearby universes after the distortion of the order of the universe has already happened and is in effect." This statement suggests that there are multiple universes involved.
Thus the opponent has conceded to saying the context is "ALL UNIVERSES"
Last edited:
- 6,507
- 1,721
- Thread starter
- #45
I tried to make it look as pretty as possible, but those lines break might have been a bit too much.... too much space yuck
- 218
- 42
Didn't Hypnos took hits from God Cloth Seiya?
- 13,191
- 2,829
Stek has something he'll like to add potentially later down the line regarding the scaling there
- 957
- 1,301
Literally no one said this does can not mean all universes, however there is zero context to suggest that there and all the more to confirm entire universe.
You are attacking a blatant strawman here.
1. No one said that information from other series isn't valid or reliable, but that when they contradict, each series own respective rules take precedence, which they do. Again, you misinterpret the point and make a strawman.
2. Presumably? It's literally written and drawn by him front to back. And no, the information from GA was put into doubt because it directly contradicts what Next Dimension says verbatim from credible characters.
3. And.. the fact that it's literally stated she went to the past of their timeline (200 years ago). It doesn't mean she went to a different universe, because it's literally stated otherwise and this is the entire plot.
4. How the hell is that possibly an Ad Hominem? Saying that the idea itself is invalid is literally exactly what ISN'T an Ad Hominem. Dancing around this point isn't helping your case. The usage of past, present, future, and saying that they're specifically 200 years in the past completely contradicts your theory.
5. I never ignored anything and took the effort to address every issue brought up, I'm just explaining how even if your case were true, it doesn't change anything about the usage of universe and that it' non sequitur to the claim all universes were affected.
6. Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing. The characters throughout the entire story talk as though they're in the past of their timeline, and even intermediate between seeing the past and future. None of their interactions make sense whatsoever with this ridiculous theory that the past and future are different universes.
It literally could not be made more that they are simply in the past of one timeline.
No it doesn't. The space-time distortions were within their universe and were one-way portals out of the universe which happened to lead into another dimension. The other universes were completely unaffected.
1. No, your blog literally says this:
This is not a strawman, and if that's what you're saying, you've backtracked or just didn't articulate the point properly before, neither of which is my problem. Time travel does exist and does work in the Saint Seiya universe, even your GA example proves this. Whether it can change history itself in the way you're thinking remains to be seen, however Chronos (the literal primordial god of time), indicates that it can.
2. Because said inconsistencies are vague details nitpicked by the reader of a story that isn't even complete yet to explain how this time travel will work, however, the fact that they are in the past of their timeline is directly stated again and again.
3. Are you even really following the discussion or.... that was about whether or not the feat that's described is a chain reaction and someone saying it doesn't have to be through time travel, and I simply pointed that no matter the trigger, a chain reaction is still a chain reaction.
4. Yeah, because you're literally nitpicking incomplete information in an incomplete story to try and refute directly stated facts.
5. No, time travel can be possible without the future being changed in the way you're thinking (which would cause a paradox). This is very common in time travel stories.
Novikov self-consistency principle - Wikipedia
But until the story concludes, we are working with incomplete information to understand this for fact. The only thing we have been told for fact is that they're in the past of their timeline.
6. The hypocrisy is that you said something like that.
Yes, Shady, the guy who's been doing this for decades since the Next Dimension has been serializing and knows the Japanese language and his translations always check out when compared to the original. I never said he's some infallible authority though, I'm just showing what probably the best versed in the series, and unbiased user thinks.
And for the record, you do realize that this entire site runs on an appeal to authority with the moderator votes? I don't see how citing what the best translator thinks is the correct translation any different for this respective series, like how Herms98 is cited in DBZ threads.
No, Shady checks his translations after fact and corrects them (we literally went through this before with the chapter 58 translations when he sent me a corrected final version), though if that's your issue, I'm happy to text him and ask him to take a look at it again, now that the chapters have been out for a while now.
And I already provided explanations as to why that's wrong and what the context really suggests. You're acting as if I ignored any points made, that's not the case.
????
I literally did?
(The previous post)
I had this and the other statements. looked at on r/translator as well, where as expected, it was again agreed this means entire universe.
1. Because there isn't any.
2. Taking the highest possible interpretation of a word that is the less common usage as well just because it exists, is in fact, reaching.
3. That's what I could say about you ignoring all the context showing it only refers to the universe, and the lack thereof for anything more.
4 and 5. The only false dichotomy is you acting as if the past and present being different universes somehow relates to whether or not it means entire or all, when it reality, it's completely irrelevant. That's not downplaying evidence, that's avoiding the usage of non sequiturs and making incoherent conclusions. If the past were it's own universe, that just means the past universe is at the risk of destruction. Cool.
6. I never suggested that whatsoever, seriously, chill with the strawmans. One way holes being generated in the universe does not equate to other universes being affected, it literally shows that they weren't.
7. Except nothing you posted suggests that. Pointing out your logic is non sequitur and irrelevant to the issue (and as a result, there's no context to imply your case) is merely attacking the argument, not misrepresenting anything.
8. Attacking the prospect of certain arguments being reaching is not a personal attack, literally no different from you claiming I downplayed something. Stop trying to poison the well and get a grip.
How does the story go back and forth? Athena hasn't given up on changing history nor has her ability to been refuted. What's really the case is that this fictional story doesn't adhere to your interpretations and personal standards as to how time travel (already fictional and theoretical at best concept in itself) works, this doesn't mean the story itself contradicts.
And again, what you claim about changing history also contradicts Next Dimension where Chronos himself warns her against this. In GA the context is different as Shura actually went to a different universe. As I explained above, depending on how the story continues, it could be revealed to be a Closed Time Like Curve under the Novikovian Self Consistency Principle extremely common in fiction), and this why the story has to be concluded to confirm this information. In any case, it's already confirmed that Athena went to the past of their timeline, not a different universe. That's all that matters here.
What happens to change the past or whether the past can/does change beyond this, is utterly irrelevant to whether or not she was sent the past at all.
Also, you still haven't explained how this point about past and future being different universes is even relevant to the argument here or changes anything, because as it stands this seems like a completely meaningless thing to discuss.
My final thoughts:
All you've provided is a walltext of misused fallacies, dodged points, attempts to poison the well, and muddied the discussion with meaningless topics that you haven't even explained the relevancy of. So what even if the past and future were different universes?
I never did anything like that, you're literally making things up and putting words in my mouth.
A strawman and complete misinterpretation of both my argument and the story at its finest. I never said anything about other universes being affected, nor did anything I show indicate that (on the contrary it literally says otherwise verbatim).
All I showed is that there were distortions and holes created in the universe that BFRed them to other dimensions by jumping into them.
This does not mean that these portals affected said other dimensions, as portals to someplace do not mean affecting that place. In case it was missed:
Absolutely nothing happened to those universes, which instead confirms that only their universe was affected.
If there's a box in which holes appear from the inside out that lead out of it, that does not mean whatever's outside of it is affected or involved in whatever's happening inside the box. This is the same concept but with the universe and distortions within it.
What's more, another massive hole in the notion that other universes were affected is that the Underworld was completely unaffected and out of range of the distortions. And before someone brings it up, no, this isn't about how many Underworlds there are to universes, as regardless of that, it's abundantly clear that the Underworld is closer to the main universe than other universes.
And I say it again, they literally said 宇宙全体 which unanimously means entire universe, and this discussion of what could've been meant because "context" became pointless as soon as that as pointed out, as that wording is not ambiguous or nuanced in the slightest.
I never conceded to anything like that whatsoever aside from you putting words in my mouth and making more non sequiturs and ridiculous leaps in logic. One-way distortions within the universe BFRing to other dimensions does not equate to said dimensions being affected, and on the contrary, it's demonstrably shown that the effects that create those distortions are local to just that universe and weren't happening to the other universe.
At any rate, I'd like to make sure the other points I made in regards to context here that were pretty much completely ignored or not even close to addressed thoroughly aren't glossed over again.
The second point strongly indicates that in no case is any of the destruction happening being Tier 2 anything.
Another unaddressed issue that remains is that this destruction is a chain reaction (Environmental Destruction exclusive to the verse, where messing with the "providence" of the universe can cause it to eventually fall apart. Whether this is done through time travel shenanigans or a god's power in an unspecified way, the Pope describes it as this chain reaction nonetheless), and one that's completely unquantifiable.
- 6,507
- 1,721
- Thread starter
- #49
I won't be able to respond until a later date.
- 957
- 1,301
Cool. I won't be posting on this topic for a bit either (till I get Shady to take another look at the scenes in question), because unless I missed something, your main issue with it was that the translations could be old from when the chapters first dropped. That shouldn't be an issue with a reevaluation now that they've been out for over 2 years.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 5,404
- 4,257
I think we should all calm down, no point getting upset over anime
- 6,507
- 1,721
- Thread starter
- #52
I'm not upset or heated lol.
Kind of neutral not really feeling any emotion atm.
Kind of neutral not really feeling any emotion atm.
- 280
- 63
I more like agree with SSJ Gemini with her/his argument which made me disagree about 2-A.
- 6,507
- 1,721
- Thread starter
- #54
If I came across as rude, upset or heated. I apologize. When it comes to writing things out. I'm not good at controlling tone lol
- 957
- 1,301
Its cool lol don't worry about it and likewise, not gonna act as if I don't have the same issue sometimes either
- 856
- 274
Sorry can you tag @Executor_N0 to verify the translations
- 4,633
- 6,730
As with a lot of verses relying on translated content, a large portion of the arguments in this thread so far have been directed towards what the original text is trying to say and what translations are accurate/inaccurate. I don't believe simply positing that something can be translated one way or a different way will result in a justified conclusion without a qualified opinion on which translation is better suited to the context.
Could we perhaps get a compilation of the various scans/translations that are contentious (i.e.: the scan talking about either "all" or "the entire" universe/s) so we can have a Japanese translation helper look over them and provide input?
Could we perhaps get a compilation of the various scans/translations that are contentious (i.e.: the scan talking about either "all" or "the entire" universe/s) so we can have a Japanese translation helper look over them and provide input?
- 12,470
- 6,319
Yes sis, could you help us with that?
- 4,633
- 6,730
I will assist, but given that I have just looked over the thread once so far, it's quite possible I will miss important details. I would like input from both the OP and the opposition regarding which scans/translations are of particular importance.
EDIT:
Two things immediately stand out:
1: We are uncertain about whether this scan (particularly, "宇宙全ての摂理を狂わせるような大きな力が!") refers to "all universes" or "the entire universe".
2: We are uncertain whether this scan (particularly, "ウフ･･･ ここはね、すべての宇宙のどの時空にも通じるところね") refers to "all of the spacetime for all of the universes" or "all the order in the universe".
Even just getting assistance from a translation helper for these two quotes would go a long way to resolving this thread, but I have little doubt more clarification could be warranted.
Last edited:
- 12,470
- 6,319
I see, makes sense to me, @Executor_N0 is a good translator for these things.
- 6,507
- 1,721
- Thread starter
- #61
I can do that yeah, it'll have to be later though, but what is important to know is Context changes the meaning. Which I provided context. The opposition appears to be strictly only focusing on 1 part of the context presented, though and not the other supporting feats that support that it means "all universes." We do have many other feats that imply 2-A range and AP.
Last edited:
- 4,633
- 6,730
I'm not so certain. In much the same way that many of the implications in the scans can support your case, there are also implications in the scans that can support the inverse. For example, these separations in space-time being referred to as "nebulas/galaxies" could contest the case regarding the structure of the multiverse, and the monologue about the risk of changing the events of the past being brought up could contest the case against time travel being non-existent within the verse. For all we know, all these galaxies are taking place within nothing more than a single, large universe, and travelling to different galaxies allows one to go forward or back in time within this universe.
I'm not saying either of these are necessarily true. In fact, I'm forced to doubt both of them. I think a fair bit of the evidence becomes confusing when examined under these lens. But they can be taken as plausible conclusions from the evidence provided, and these conclusions give a whole new context to the aforementioned statements - one which your case cannot rest with. There's a lot of holes in our explanations here, holes which I have a suspicion are caused in-part by problematic translations. That's why I would like clarification first and foremost on the validity of these translations.
- 12,470
- 6,319
I think every Japanese scan should get a new translation by @Executor_N0, I don't think the Op's interpretations are good compared to the scans
- 4,633
- 6,730
Out of curiosity, why them specifically? I'd have to imagine they know Japanese if you'd like to ping them, but they're not a translation helper.
- 856
- 274
They’ve helped with other Saint Seiya threads in the past. So partially because they’ve helped and because they’re able to confirm translations.
- 4,633
- 6,730
Understandable. I'll ping them.
@Executor_N0 , would you be able to offer your assistance here? There are a few scans we would like help with translating.
- 12,470
- 6,319
Thank you very much
- 6,507
- 1,721
- Thread starter
- #68
There's more context I'd like to provide but that may take a moment.
- 3,299
- 3,279
Which scans?
- 6,507
- 1,721
- Thread starter
- #70
I'm at work. I can't reply in detail for a while, but I have additional scans to add for context sake besides what's in the blog.
Canoncities, and the other canon works are important for context here
- 12,470
- 6,319
- 856
- 274
I suggest you wait, the OP has scans she wants to present and talk about so please refrain from talking for them until they are ready
- 3,299
- 3,279
I'm still busy with other projects, but just going to share this here if it can be helpful.
About anything "subete" related, it's nearly never possible to be 100% sure of the intended meaning.
Let me take an example from Digimon, a very complicated profile says the following
その存在目的は善悪を超越し、全てを無に帰することにある。中心の大口や数多い触手の口でデジモンやデジタルワールド自体にも齧りつき、齧った後には空白のブランクデータを残すのみである。アバドモンの誕生はデジタルワールド全ての危機であることは間違いなく、別次元のデジタルワールドをいくつか消滅したのではとも推測されている。
Its raison d'être is to transcend good and evil, and return everything to nothingness. It bites into Digimon and the Digital World itself with the large mouth at its center and the mouths on its numerous tentacles, and after doing so, only empty, blank data is left behind. The birth of Abbadomon is undoubtedly a crisis for the entire Digital World, and it is conjectured that some Digital Worlds from other dimensions have been annihilated by it.
The term here is "デジタルワールド全て" (Dejitaruwārudo subete; just change this with "uchu" and it's the same way it was written in the first scan). In a way, it can refer to an "entire Digital World" because it can destroy an entire Digital World, as it did before, but it's talking in the context of other dimensions, so is it a reference to just that they can destroy an entire Digital World, or all Digital Worlds because it already destroyed some in the past? The truth is, we don't know. It can be either and we don't have really more context to be 100% sure, as both of those interpretations are valid in that context. In fact, previously the fans translated it as "all Digital Worlds", they only decided to go with "entire Digital World" after the official translation got released (And they can be by far worse than anything here).
The same is the case here in the first scan. They are talking about time travel and going from a different timeline, and yet "subete" can refer to a single totality and not all of them, it's not unusual. So the intended reading can be that of the totality of a single universe (Although it's not impossible to be all of them, if the destruction shows to be affecting the timeline they are originally from, I guess it could be more argued that it's supposed to refer to all of them).
The second scan, however, can be a bit more clear considering that we see later on they talking about different universes and even about another universe being born, so their "subete" is clearly being used to describe "all of the multiple similar things" instead of "all of a single thing".
About anything "subete" related, it's nearly never possible to be 100% sure of the intended meaning.
Let me take an example from Digimon, a very complicated profile says the following
その存在目的は善悪を超越し、全てを無に帰することにある。中心の大口や数多い触手の口でデジモンやデジタルワールド自体にも齧りつき、齧った後には空白のブランクデータを残すのみである。アバドモンの誕生はデジタルワールド全ての危機であることは間違いなく、別次元のデジタルワールドをいくつか消滅したのではとも推測されている。
Its raison d'être is to transcend good and evil, and return everything to nothingness. It bites into Digimon and the Digital World itself with the large mouth at its center and the mouths on its numerous tentacles, and after doing so, only empty, blank data is left behind. The birth of Abbadomon is undoubtedly a crisis for the entire Digital World, and it is conjectured that some Digital Worlds from other dimensions have been annihilated by it.
The term here is "デジタルワールド全て" (Dejitaruwārudo subete; just change this with "uchu" and it's the same way it was written in the first scan). In a way, it can refer to an "entire Digital World" because it can destroy an entire Digital World, as it did before, but it's talking in the context of other dimensions, so is it a reference to just that they can destroy an entire Digital World, or all Digital Worlds because it already destroyed some in the past? The truth is, we don't know. It can be either and we don't have really more context to be 100% sure, as both of those interpretations are valid in that context. In fact, previously the fans translated it as "all Digital Worlds", they only decided to go with "entire Digital World" after the official translation got released (And they can be by far worse than anything here).
The same is the case here in the first scan. They are talking about time travel and going from a different timeline, and yet "subete" can refer to a single totality and not all of them, it's not unusual. So the intended reading can be that of the totality of a single universe (Although it's not impossible to be all of them, if the destruction shows to be affecting the timeline they are originally from, I guess it could be more argued that it's supposed to refer to all of them).
The second scan, however, can be a bit more clear considering that we see later on they talking about different universes and even about another universe being born, so their "subete" is clearly being used to describe "all of the multiple similar things" instead of "all of a single thing".
- 6,507
- 1,721
- Thread starter
- #74
Id like to give you more details on the usage of 全宇宙
First is the metaphorical usage of Galaxies to represent Universe.
Though, i forgot to add into this the Saintia Sho scans that also show this relationship
Athena is stated to be "Coming from a far away space time"
then later the kanji 時間軸 is used to describe this "faraway" Space time.
Edit: 時間軸 meaning a timeline or time axis
Also, past, present, and future are general references to parallels dimensions.
There is other scans, the whole idea of Galaxies being a metaphorical representation of a universe is only supporting evidence. The idea of 全宇宙 being important; is important to only that.
There are other feats that strengthen a 2-A rating individually.
Edit: I'll respond to gemini at a later time. i got a lot going on today.
Last edited:
- 957
- 1,301
The Nebulas are not literal galaxies nor are they literal universes, they're verbatim portals to other points in time. I'm pretty sure even administrators such as @Firestorm808 explained this as well.
This post has a good explanation. Though it's confusing as how this either is relevant to the meaning of 全宇宙, similar to the issue of past or future being the same universe or not, this is completely irrelevant.
A notable example of the usage of 彼方 would be like how in Dragon Ball Super, 宇宙の彼方 (other side of the universe) is used to describe faraway places in the same universe, not another universe or someplace beyond it. Likewise, here it's describing points in the same space-time (which is already contextually shown through the time travel of 200 years plot), not another space-time.
Though again, I don't understand the relevancy of this information to the matter of what 全宇宙 itself means.
I find this especially of interest as, from my own experience and researching it, the adjective 全体 specifically isn't really as flexible and open to interpretation as 全 (as 全体 combines the Kanji 体 "form/body" with 全 "all of" and basically refers to the entire form of something in the most literal sense), and unanimously refers to a single totality.
This post has a good explanation. Though it's confusing as how this either is relevant to the meaning of 全宇宙, similar to the issue of past or future being the same universe or not, this is completely irrelevant.
This. Yeah, that's basically it, they're described as portals contained on planet Earth that can take them to different points in time (time travel).
This is not true. The phrase used there is 時空の彼方, where space-time (時空) is possessive of 彼方, not 彼方 being an adjective of space-time as it's own thing. This phrase means, in the most simplified sense, "other side of space-time", and simply refers to Athena coming from 200 years in the future to the past.
A notable example of the usage of 彼方 would be like how in Dragon Ball Super, 宇宙の彼方 (other side of the universe) is used to describe faraway places in the same universe, not another universe or someplace beyond it. Likewise, here it's describing points in the same space-time (which is already contextually shown through the time travel of 200 years plot), not another space-time.
Though again, I don't understand the relevancy of this information to the matter of what 全宇宙 itself means.
I think the others have been posted, this is the other one.
I find this especially of interest as, from my own experience and researching it, the adjective 全体 specifically isn't really as flexible and open to interpretation as 全 (as 全体 combines the Kanji 体 "form/body" with 全 "all of" and basically refers to the entire form of something in the most literal sense), and unanimously refers to a single totality.
Well I did, and unsurprisingly, he maintains that it means entire universe as he put in his translations.
As far as qualification and knowing context goes in this case, I can't imagine anyone more than the guy above. Aside from knowing Japanese and being unbiased here, he's made the most reputed and credible translation of the entire manga (even when scrutinized side by side with the raw in these Vs debate discussions). A translator who also knows Saint Seiya front to back and better than anyone here.
- 6,507
- 1,721
- Thread starter
- #76
Id like to inform staff with a quick comment that the oppoenent is blatantly ignoring canoncity. There is a detailed blog i created (and was accepted in a past CRT) that basically to sum up says, Everything was planned by Kurumada, and written. The opponent who is disagreeing with this thread also agreed with the canoncity blogs legitimacy.
This also includes the idea of a multiverse introduced in almost all new works in the series.
This critical piece of information is absolutely important for the sake of context for the whole series. Context from one series can change the meaning of 全宇宙 (entire universe) to 全宇宙 (All Universes)
Translators in the saint seiya space don't really pay much attention too, or do research on the canon of saint seiya thus meaning of 全宇宙 changes due to their lack of understanding.
vsbattles.fandom.com
Im going to explain how important Context is to the japanese langauge now. This is relevant because all camon works tie into each other in the multiverse and on several occasions they explain the multiverse with very similar Kanji and descriptions. Thus this additional context changes what 全宇宙 means to all universes
This also includes the idea of a multiverse introduced in almost all new works in the series.
This critical piece of information is absolutely important for the sake of context for the whole series. Context from one series can change the meaning of 全宇宙 (entire universe) to 全宇宙 (All Universes)
Translators in the saint seiya space don't really pay much attention too, or do research on the canon of saint seiya thus meaning of 全宇宙 changes due to their lack of understanding.
TheUnshakableOne/sandbox
vsbattles.fandom.com
Im going to explain how important Context is to the japanese langauge now. This is relevant because all camon works tie into each other in the multiverse and on several occasions they explain the multiverse with very similar Kanji and descriptions. Thus this additional context changes what 全宇宙 means to all universes
Last edited:
- 856
- 274
Sorry @Executor_N0 can you take a look at this scan here and Jp raws that the op suggest?
« This… this is a nebula!? » « Not just one. From here we can see the universe’s nebulas in their entirety »
« The past and the future are intertwined here » « A world transcending time »
« Th-then… this place is unmistakably… »
大宇宙 「だいうちゅう」- universe, cosmos
見える 「みえる」- to be able to see
混在 「こんざい」- mixed, intertwined
時間 「じかん」- time
超越する 「ちょうえつする」- to transcend
世界 「せかい」- world
« This… this is a nebula!? » « Not just one. From here we can see the universe’s nebulas in their entirety »
« The past and the future are intertwined here » « A world transcending time »
« Th-then… this place is unmistakably… »
大宇宙 「だいうちゅう」- universe, cosmos
見える 「みえる」- to be able to see
混在 「こんざい」- mixed, intertwined
時間 「じかん」- time
超越する 「ちょうえつする」- to transcend
世界 「せかい」- world
- 957
- 1,301
???Id like to inform staff with a quick comment that the oppoenent is blatantly ignoring canoncity. There is a detailed blog i created (and was accepted in a past CRT) that basically to sum up says, Everything was planned by Kurumada, and written. The opponent who is disagreeing with this thread also agreed with the canoncity blogs legitimacy.
This also includes the idea of a multiverse introduced in almost all new works in the series.
This critical piece of information is absolutely important for the sake of context for the whole series. Context from one series can change the meaning of 全宇宙 (entire universe) to 全宇宙 (All Universes)
Translators in the saint seiya space don't really pay much attention too, or do research on the canon of saint seiya thus meaning of 全宇宙 changes due to their lack of understanding.
TheUnshakableOne/sandbox
Im going to explain who important Context is to the japanese langauge now
Who ignored canonicity? I never said anything like that, I even acknowledged your canonicity argument of other series in multiple threads and even in this one where I took something from Episode G Assassin into account.
No one denied the existence of a multiverse or spin offs being canon (as other timelines), even in Next Dimension the scene where Shiryu went to another universe confirms there is a multiverse in the main series at question. That's completely irrelevant to whether 全宇宙 means entire or all here.
We know that context is important, that's what this entire discussion has been about. I've given my own explanations to the context proving it means entire universe, and someone who's translated the entire manga front to back is not ignorant to any context either and confirms the same thing. A qualified user's opinion was asked for, and I provided it.
This indicates how certain users such as this and others don't even really thoroughly read the posts I make before making a disagreement, because I've literally expressed my acceptance and acknowledgement of the canonicity blog multiple times in multiple threads. In this one as well. There's a difference between noting blatant contradictions between different series and calling something not canon.
Seriously, can I stop being strawmanned?
The bottom of the full crop of the page as well, which describes this place as the space-time gates on Earth.
- 6,491
- 2,487
Chronos does tell Athena not to mess with the past, but He specifically says fate cannot be changed. This means that the more likely interpretation is that he doesn’t want that past’s future becoming messed up by her actions. Also, it’s very much implied/straight up said that each galaxy is a “dimension” and also that the past and future are on different time axis. This heavily indicates they are not the same timeline.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
