Read on Twitter
Have to disagree with this commentπ§΅, because γγγγ―γγγγ is not a truncation of the phrasesγγγγ―ιγγΎγγ or γγγγ―ζ¬ε½γ γ.
In these contexts, it's 100% phatic, not literal.
You're still taking the γγ too literally.
In these contexts, it's 100% phatic, not literal.
You're still taking the γγ too literally.
https://twitter.com/TheZackZeal/status/1648589456788672515
"The character themselves doesn't know which one it is"?
If they're being asked a question and don't know the answer, then they wouldn't be responding with "That's not true/that's right", would they? π
In that case, γγγ― HAS to be phatic, and "that's" is even MORE wrong!
If they're being asked a question and don't know the answer, then they wouldn't be responding with "That's not true/that's right", would they? π
In that case, γγγ― HAS to be phatic, and "that's" is even MORE wrong!
Not all stock translations are bad, but some bad translations can and DO become stock translations.
See my favorite 許γγͺγ as "I won't forgive you!"
See my favorite 許γγͺγ as "I won't forgive you!"
I'm sure there are one or two rare exceptions to the rule -- where a character actually means γγγ― as a truncated "That is..." statement.
But I've yet to see a single example in my entire career -- and would love to see one if you've got it!
But I've yet to see a single example in my entire career -- and would love to see one if you've got it!
https://twitter.com/katrinaltrnsl8r/status/1648511688130592769
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
γ
