"it's this way that Link's first adventure comes to end"
Two possible interpretive choices:
(1) "It's this way that [this particular] Link's first adventure comes to an end."
(2) "It's this way that [the first ever] Link's first adventure comes to an end."
As far as I'm concerned, those two interpretations can easily derive from the same sentence; therefore, it's ambiguous at best.
But it wouldn't be the first time the German verison is right while the others are wrong (for example, the Minish Woods are called both in Japanese and German Pycolite Woods).
That's not an issue of right and wrong, Arturo, and you know it. It's an issue of transliteration versus complete localisation.
Moreover, all the translations of the agme seem to communicate the feeling that Link's adventure will never end as long as the Light Force is around. This would emzan two things:
1. The Light Force is the Triforce, because it's what guides Link's adventures in the rest of the agmes
And the Master Sword sleeps forever. Oh wait... but it doesn't. :Þ
Flowery text is always an option. 'Nuff said.
2.This is Link's first adventure. If this wasn't true, why is it necessary adding the part that Link will ahve many more adventures in teh future and will always stay to protect Hyrule? Doesn't it make much more sense if TMC comes first?
No. Just no.
This statement talks about the future. Not the past. From a denotative interpretation of the sentence, the statement that adventures will continue so long as the Light Force is around says nothing about what happened before. Consider the following sentence: "So long as I have you, my wife, I shall be happy forever." Does this imply that I was never happy before I said the sentence? Absolutely not. It merely implies that I currently am happy and that said happiness will continue ad infinitum
. It doesn't place any restrictions on anything happening prior.
Again, Ganon's Tower?
I could easily go into deep logic and specify that how showing that one object didn't get destroyed for some very small amount of time doesn't equal the statement that nothing got destroyed over the whole duration of being submerged, but I shan't. Instead, I will address this specific point technically.
Consider the Twin Towers during the 9/11 attacks. A jet liner flies into both of the Twin Towers. Does the jet liner bring it down? No. Therefore, by your logic, since it didn't happen right away, the Twin Towers should still be standing. But we know the contrary is true; something else caused it to fall, a gradual weakening of the structural integrity.
So therefore, can you prove that Ganon's Tower doesn't fall, oh, say an hour after the flood, after the full weight of the water and the huge amount of water pressure at that depth could possibly crush or implode it? No, you can't. Similarly, I cannot prove that it does. Such lack of proof in both cases stems from the fact that we don't see anything.
Therefore, it's an open question.
Edited by The Missing Link, 25 April 2007 - 11:16 AM.