3

Struggling to grasp this sentence:

残像{ざんぞう}さえ霞む{かすむ}高速{こうそく}の打突{だとつ}。

Rapid strikes that [verb clause starts] ...

Applying structures from here and here hasn't made sense to me so far.

Thinking about it more: "Rapid strikes, such that even their afterimage becomes blurred"? Sounds horrible when I translate it like that.

  • 2
    In Japanese, the citation form of a verb is finite, so it doesn't make sense to call it the infinitive. In fact, the term "infinitive" is used by some linguists for an actual non-finite form, the one called 連用形 in Japanese grammar. – snailplane Mar 29 '15 at 0:34
1

Your translation shows your complete understanding of the phrase even if you do not like it yourself.

A difficulty this relative clause could present for the translator is the fact that 「霞む」 is an intransitive verb and that is not the action either performed by or against 「打突」, the main noun of the relative clause.

What I often do in such cases is that I rephrase it the way it does not change the meaning or nuance of the original.

「残像さえ霞む高速の打突」

I mentally rephrased this to:

「残像さえ霞むような高速の打突」,

「残像さえ霞むほど高速の打突」 or

「残像さえ霞むほどに高速打突」

The phrase became somewhat easier to translate and I now have:

"a strike so rapid that even its afterimage gets blurred"

A noun phrase needs to stay as such till the end. I said that because many users here tend to call a phrase like this a "sentence".

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.