Who can help me with my translation? Can you understand what I wrote? What is the biggist problem?

Question

A man in the village nearby was killed in his home by three brothers, and it stemmed from land renting. The renter have the landowner beaten because he would not take the price offered, and the beaters even trumpeted that if they had have him killed, a few thousands of money would cover their crime. Then the man who had been beaten with his two brothers commited the murder, ruining four families at the same time.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

A man in the village nearby was killed in his home by three brothers over land rental. The renter had the landowner beaten because he would not take the rent offered, and his assailants even trumpeted that if they had killed him, a few thousand dollars would cover their crime. Then the landowner who had been beaten and his two brothers committed the murder, ruining four families at the same time.

KrisBlueNZ · Answer

Your story is clear enough for me to understand.

A man in ~~the~~ a ~~village nearby~~ nearby village was killed in his home by three brothers, ~~and it stemmed from~~ because of a dispute about land ~~renting~~ rental.

Nearby village (adjective noun) is more natural than village nearby (noun adjective).
You would normally use the indefinite article, a, to describe the nearby village, because (presumably) there is more than one nearby village. The particular village is one of several nearby villages, so it's a nearby village.
Saying "and it stemmed from..." is wrong. You mean "and the killing stemmed from..." but it refers to the subject of the previous part of the sentence, which is a man. So "and it stemmed from..." would actually mean "and the man stemmed from...". The simplest solution is to join the two parts of the sentence with because. This allows the second part of the sentence to explain the reason for the first part of the sentence. "A man was killed ... because [of] ..."
A better option is to use after or following instead of because of. After or following implies that the dispute was the reason for the killing, and is shorter and cleaner.
You can't say that the killing stemmed from (or was caused by) land renting. The killing was caused by a dispute or disagreement or argument about land rental.
Land rental is the normal phrase. Or you could say the renting of land. Land renting is not wrong, but it's not idiomatic.

The ~~renter~~ tenant ~~have~~ had the landowner beaten because he would not ~~take~~ accept the ~~price~~ rate offered,

A person who rents a house, apartment, etc is called a tenant. In this case, he is renting land. Does this land have a house on it? If so, tenant is better than renter. Even if there is no house on the land, and even if the renter is not living on the land, I think tenant is probably better. Renter is a valid word, but is not often used.
The beating of the landowner happened in the past, so you have to use past tense - he had him beaten.
Landlord is normally used instead of landowner when land is rented out to a tenant. Landowner is a valid word, so it's not wrong, but I think landlord is better.
Accept is a bit clearer than take. You could also say "... because he demanded a higher rate than the tenant was prepared to pay." This means that the landowner said "To continue renting my land, you must pay me ..." (a demand), and the amount was too high, or unacceptably high, in the opinion of the tenant.
Price is almost always used for single purchases. For example, "What is the price of this loaf of bread?" Renting land is done on a weekly or monthly basis, with an ongoing contract, so the rental should be described as a rate (e.g. $2000 per month), or perhaps a charge or cost, or just the rent, but not a price.

and the beaters even trumpeted that if they had ~~have~~ had him killed, a few ~~thousands of money~~ thousand dollars would cover their crime.

Beater is not normally used to describe a person. It's not wrong, but it's not idiomatic. You could replace beaters with attackers.
"... if they had had him killed ..." looks odd because of the had had but it's fine.
Money is an uncountable noun; you can't have "a thousand money", just like you can't have "a thousand sand". You should say "a few thousand dollars", or whatever the unit of currency was.

Then the ~~man who had been beaten~~ landlord ~~with~~ and his two brothers ~~commited~~ committed the murder, ruining four families at the same time.

You can say "the landlord and his brothers committed the murder", or "the landlord committed the murder with (or along with) his two brothers".
Committed is misspelled; it has a double T.
Ruining is not wrong. Often, when families are badly affected by an event, it is described with hyperbole (exaggeration) as wrecking or destroying the families. The families were obviously very much affected, but they were not literally destroyed or wrecked. So ruining is a fair choice. You could perhaps replace it with badly affecting.
You could possibly replace at the same time with at once.

With a little restructuring, this paragraph could be a lot simpler. It would be difficult to describe how I came up with this rearrangement, so I won't try!

"A man in a nearby village was killed in his home by three men after a dispute over land rental.

After a big rent increase, a tenant hired some thugs to beat up his landlord. They even trumpeted that they would have killed him for a few thousand dollars more. So the landlord and his two brothers murdered the tenant, ruining four families at the same time."

Brenda1st · Answer

Thanks a lot! Your answer really helps me!

Brenda1st · Answer

Thanks for the help ^O^!

Who can help me with my translation? Can you understand what I wrote? What is the biggist problem?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions