Even his hypothetical example was weak and retarded
If you actually care about language and what words actually say, you could easily notice new things that were added in the second that do change some of the meaning of what he said in his example.
First is the element of time. It makes it so that whatever plot to kill him is going to happen on the same day it is spoken. That did not exist in the first line.
Second is the element of being either A. uncaring as to the cost of killing the character or B. The supposed character is that evil that they're willing to sacrifice much for it. This can drastically change the nature of that character unless he's just retarded and says shit like this thoughtlessly, which is still a character trait, but one that would make his words less valuable in general.
Third is the personal element of being the one to kill him being removed. He changes from "I must kill him" to merely being a witness to the dead foe.
Even still, sadly these changes are less than what you actually and usually see in localization. They often just make up shit whole cloth, invent new personality traits, censor shit, remove references to gender, and insert horrible "humor".
No, that translation was because le ebic silent ninja meme is lolrandum sofunny.
It was two OTHER "localizations" that were utterly changed (a crossdresser becoming a gay, and an entire androphobic's plotline) because of "offensive". FE/Fates was mangled.
He changes from "I must kill him" to merely being a witness to the dead foe.
The second still means "I must kill him." It's less blunt and more flowery, but someone who tells you the latter is still planning to be the one holding the knife.
No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. It can mean that, but he could just as easily have someone else kill the person on his behalf as he can himself.
Moreover, there is also another element that I missed: the implied need that comes from the word "must". There is no such thing in the second one unless you read the "at all costs" thing in that way, but that is still a different meaning.
That dude is a lying faggot
Even his hypothetical example was weak and retarded
If you actually care about language and what words actually say, you could easily notice new things that were added in the second that do change some of the meaning of what he said in his example.
First is the element of time. It makes it so that whatever plot to kill him is going to happen on the same day it is spoken. That did not exist in the first line.
Second is the element of being either A. uncaring as to the cost of killing the character or B. The supposed character is that evil that they're willing to sacrifice much for it. This can drastically change the nature of that character unless he's just retarded and says shit like this thoughtlessly, which is still a character trait, but one that would make his words less valuable in general.
Third is the personal element of being the one to kill him being removed. He changes from "I must kill him" to merely being a witness to the dead foe.
Even still, sadly these changes are less than what you actually and usually see in localization. They often just make up shit whole cloth, invent new personality traits, censor shit, remove references to gender, and insert horrible "humor".
These are the same faggots who call it "yoda speak" when they aren't the ones doing it.
Translators are not writers, they are the equivalent of jannies
Never forget that they "localized" entire dialog in one of the Fire Emblem games to ... because it was "offensive"
No, that translation was because le ebic silent ninja meme is lolrandum sofunny.
It was two OTHER "localizations" that were utterly changed (a crossdresser becoming a gay, and an entire androphobic's plotline) because of "offensive". FE/Fates was mangled.
The second still means "I must kill him." It's less blunt and more flowery, but someone who tells you the latter is still planning to be the one holding the knife.
No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. It can mean that, but he could just as easily have someone else kill the person on his behalf as he can himself.
Moreover, there is also another element that I missed: the implied need that comes from the word "must". There is no such thing in the second one unless you read the "at all costs" thing in that way, but that is still a different meaning.