Valentin

I wouldn’t give up on that thought. I do think that 浅香 (asaka) includes a possible hint. As @Chekhov MacGuffin wrote, 浅 is principally the opposite of deep: １：川はここで浅くなっている。 1: The river has become shallow here. -> The river is shallow here. That’s the prototypical meaning. There are, however, phrases that transfer this notion to other semantic levels: ２：彼は教師としての経験が浅い。 2: As for him, experience as a teacher is shallow. -> He has little experience in teaching. 経験が浅い (experience is shallow) has become a common phrase to express that someone has little experience in something. The temporal aspect can be made even more apparent: ３：我々は知り合ってからまだ日が浅い。 3: As for us, since knowing each other, the days have still been shallow. -> We haven’t known each other for a long time. -> We have known each other for a short time. While the last translation isn’t exactly great English, I hope it clarifies that 日が浅い (days are shallow) signifies a brief time span. That can also be done more directly: ４：春はまだ浅かった。 4: The spring was still shallow. -> The spring was still young. If not many days have passed after a certain point of time, 浅 can express that something is young. Regarding 香, I see one thing standing out: While the character—like @Chekhov MacGuffin wrote as well—generally describes something that you can perceive through the nose, it’s likewise a common abbreviation for 香車 (kyousha) ‘incense chariot’. What makes it so interesting is that this is the full title of the shougi piece lance, which can only move forward. Though I don’t want to claim that this is the correct interpretation, I do think that 浅香 can be read as a short form of 浅い香車 ‘shallow lance’ and thus as lance with little experience or simply young lance. The lance’s limited mobility could refer to a straightforward assassin that doesn’t hesitate to get the job done, but also to someone who is excessively straightforward due to their lack of experience or their early age (where the former may of course be conditioned by the latter) and makes (unnecessary) mistakes as a result. Not least because there are several other ways to write the name Asaka, I’m convinced that Aoyama at least wants us to think about his choice of characters and their potential connection to shougi (whether or not they’re merely supposed to be a red herring), so I wanted in any case to point them out. To what extent this can be applied to Rum or others in the frame of a theory—I’ll leave that to you.

As a brief supplement to Conan and Haibara’s conversation about the rooms of Amanda Hughes and Kouji Haneda, I took a closer look at those sentences in my copy of Volume 89 and tried to provide a translation as faithful and clear as possible. 1: Haibara それより引っかかるのは荒らされたまま放置されたこの部屋… ［１：それより］［２：引っかかるのは］［３：荒らされたまま］［４：放置された］［５：この部屋］… [1: more than that] [2: what bothers (me)] [3: in a devastated state] [4: left behind] [5: this room] … More than that, what bothers me is this room that was left behind in a devastated state … 2: Haibara 組織の仕業ならこんな事有り得ない… ［６：組織の仕業なら］［７：こんな事］［８：有り得ない］… [6: as for the work of the organization] [7: a thing like this] [8: inconceivable] … As for the work of the organization, a thing like this is inconceivable … 3: Haibara 何もなかったかのように立ち去るのが彼らのやり方なのに… ［９：何もなかったかのように］［１０：立ち去るのが］［１１：彼らのやり方］［１２：なのに］… [9: as if nothing had been there] [10: to (stand up and) leave] [11: their way of doing] [12: despite] Despite leaving as if nothing had been there is their way of doing … 4: Haibara 実際、殺された資産家の部屋はそうだったみたいだし… ［１３：実際］、［１４：殺された資産家の部屋は］［１５：そうだったみたいだし］… [13: in fact], [14: the room of the killed wealthy person] [15: seems to have been like that] In fact, the room of the killed wealthy person seems to have been like that … 5: Conan 確かに洗面所の蛇口の水も出しっ放しだったって書いてある… ［１６：確かに］［１７：洗面所の蛇口の水］［１８：も］［１９：出しっ放しだった］［２０：って書いてある］… [16: indeed] [17: the water of the tap of the bathroom] [18: also] [19: was left running] [20: is written] It is indeed written that the water of the tap of the bathroom was also left running … Someone who talks about A and then about B will use an anaphoric term in the following sentence for referring to whatever was stated last instead of forcing the hearer to guess which one of the previously mentioned things is meant. In “I had a troublesome dog. Then I had a peaceful turtle. That was much better.”, that only refers to the peaceful turtle and not to the troublesome dog that was mentioned before the peaceful turtle. Correspondingly, I can’t think of any reasonable explanation why Haibara should first (Sentence 1) talk about A (Kouji Haneda’s room “left behind in a devastated state”) and then (Sentences 2–3) contrast A (Kouji Haneda’s room “left behind in a devastated state”) with B (“leaving as if nothing had been is their way of doing”) just to eventually (Sentence 4) utter C (“seems to have been like that”) for referring back not to what was stated immediately before that (“leaving as if nothing had been there is their way of doing” in Sentences 2–3), but to what was stated at the beginning (Kouji Haneda’s room “left behind in a devastated state” in Sentence 1). She is confused by the fact that a room was left in a devastated state although the organization seems to be involved, makes the focus shift by mentioning their usual modus operandi and compares the other room with that (their usual modus operandi). So I agree with Chekhov MacGuffin and Serinox and dare say that every other reading of those words has nothing to do with natural language use. As for Conan’s reply, I have a minor remark. While it doesn’t change the sense dramatically, I think that the absence of a comma after 確かに (indeed) entails that 確かに (indeed) emphasizes the rest of the sentence instead of directly affirming Sentence 4. To illustrate that, I put indeed after it is; here are the two versions for comparison: Official Version 確かに洗面所の蛇口の水も出しっ放しだったって書いてある… It is indeed written that the water of the tap of the bathroom was also left running … Alternative Version 確かに、洗面所の蛇口の水も出しっ放しだったって書いてある… Indeed, it is written that the water of the tap of the bathroom was also left running … I think that, in the latter sentence, Conan would first agree with Haibara explicitly and then mention the rest of his answer to support what she said, whereas, in the first sentence, he would solely emphasize something that supports what she said and might agree only implicitly. Again, the difference wouldn’t be too significant; I just think that the question if Conan agrees with Haibara explicitly or perhaps only implicitly isn’t completely irrelevant either, so I at least wanted to mention it. I hope this helps to clear things up a bit.