3

ufotableが書き上げた脚本を、奈須きのこが原作者としてリライトしたのが本稿である。

My question is according to this sentence what happens to the written text of the film. Sorry for my low japanese knowledge but I started 2 months ago.

Edit (this edit was made after the answer had already been given): I found another sentence which is more relevant as this time it is said by the author himself in his blog

http://www.typemoon.org/bbb/diary/log/201506.html

#25の制作は「ほぼオリジナルなので、まずは原作サイドで書くべし」と始まりました。
そしてできあがったきのこによる脚本モドキを前に頭を抱える制作陣。

It was answered (to make sure) here: Understanding the true meaning in this sentence

A good translation would be:

The production of episode 25 began with "since it's mostly original content, it should first be written from the original author's standpoint". And then the production team clutching their heads at the completed so-called script by Kinoko.

So basically, as Naruto says at the end of the comments in that question: The sentence in this question says "Kinoko wrote it first as an original work, and ufotable modified it"

5

「ufotableが書{か}き上{あ}げた脚本{きゃくほん}を、奈須{なす}きのこが原作者{げんさくしゃ}としてリライトしたのが本稿{ほんこう}である。」

Two different works are mentioned here:

1) ufotableが書き上げた脚本 ("the script written by Ufotable")

2) 奈須きのこが原作者としてリライトした ("(what/the thing) Kinoko Nasu has rewritten as the (original) author") 「の」 is a nominalizer.

And please note that the subject of the sentence is 2) and that 2) is based off of 1).

"This is the manuscript where Kinoko Nasu, as its author, has rewritten based off of the script written by Ufotable."

  • I have a few questions. My initial interpretation was that the script Ufotable eventually ended up working with was from a script base, this base being a rewrite of the source material by Kinoko Nasu (who wrote the source material in the first place). Basically my question is I was completely wrong in my translation? There are no different interpretations? Is it because of the を that it is as you say? – The Beast Jan 12 '17 at 12:04
  • Please answer when you get the time. A mere "yes I'm sure I'm right and you were completely off in your initial understanding of the sentence" would suffice. You don't have to go into detail, it's just to verify I was not right for sure in case the grammar could somehow make my translation plausible (not literal translation but the meaning/spirit behind it) – The Beast Jan 12 '17 at 14:04

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.