As I have said, that one small part does nothing to change the main theory. If that is the only nit pick, it tells me that the rest of the theory is strong because I can eliminate that line, and no part of the theory is changed. Plus, there this statement:But you said the term "interlopers" implies they came from somewhere
But that implication is from a translation, not from the source text
I agree. Someone may have easily thought that English speakers needed that extra bit of information. Knowing what little I do of other languages; I wouldn't disagree.I don't know if I'd call that an error but more so a localization choice
If you want to keep talking about the finer points of translation, the meanings behind word choice, and whether translations add to the source material, or detract from it; knowing that it does little for or against the theory presented, go ahead. I am happy to have struck interest in a topic that is facinating in it's own right. I am simply stating here, at this point, that it doesn't change the theory.