Please help me to read this English sentence:

[Koir]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

Hi, Koir. Thanks as always.
You have heard people shout Tamaya in some anime films! That’s great!!
Did you know what Tamaya was then?

A few of the times it was spoken, the translators would put up a short note explaining the reference.

Actually, the accidental fire spread and burned the half of the town down. In those days, an accidental fire was a felony charge. Tamaya got asset forfeiture. The master of Tamaya, Ichibee, was banished. So, I wrote Tamaya was extinguished.
Should I have written about how Tamaya got extinguished?

It would add more to the story and enhance understanding, so it would be a good idea. Most of my initial confusion was in using "extinguished" to explain what happened to the fireworks manufacturer. It appeared oddly symbolic and not in the same tone as the rest of the post.

Asset forfeiture? As an accountancy graduate, that really sounds painful from a business point of view.

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

Sorry, I have a question.
Kagiya is the oldest fireworks maker still now. They are making fireworks.
Should I write "Kagiya was the oldest fireworks maker in Japan."?

In that section, it reads as a comparison between Kagiya and Tamaya. The relative ages of each company is being compared, and Kagiya is the older of the two companies. Going from context later in the post, it would be easy to think that Kagiya remains the oldest fireworks maker in Japan as Tamaya's existence ended in 1843.

Possible revision:

"Today, few people shout that because the Tamaya company was destroyed in a fire in 1843 along with half the town. Kagiya, therefore, is the oldest fireworks maker in Japan."

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by Koir

A few of the times it was spoken, the translators would put up a short note explaining the reference.

You have good translators.
Next time you watch fireworks, you must shout “Kagiya” after someone shout “Tamaya”.

It would add more to the story and enhance understanding, so it would be a good idea. Most of my initial confusion was in using "extinguished" to explain what happened to the fireworks manufacturer. It appeared oddly symbolic and not in the same tone as the rest of the post.

The government extinguished Tamaya. Am I using “extinguished” properly?

Asset forfeiture? As an accountancy graduate, that really sounds painful from a business point of view.

Tamaya burned half of the town down. Most Japanese houses are made of wood, and they are closely packed, so they were/are very nervous about fire.

"Today, few people shout that because the Tamaya company was destroyed in a fire in 1843 along with half the town. Kagiya, therefore, is the oldest fireworks maker in Japan."

Kagiya is older than Tamaya since the beginning.
Still, should I write “therefore” in the sentence?

[girigiri]

If you don't mind a suggestion:

会社は締めくくられました
(because of the fire) Tamaya's business was/got wound up.

wound ← to wind.
Using "extinguished" here will cause problems. It isn't necessarily incorrect, but it does require some explanation to prevent misunderstanding.

................
Tamaya having begun as Kagiya's apprentice, that "therefore" is incorrect.

[masaegu]

Originally Posted by girigiri

If you don't mind a suggestion:

会社は締めくくられました
(because of the fire) Tamaya's company was/got wound up.

Except we never say 会社は締めくくられました.

You're at it again as if the ban had taught you nothig.

[YuriTokoro]

Koir, what do you think?

"Fireworks Display"

Every August 15 there is a fireworks display held close to where I live. I watched and enjoyed it again this year.
In the Edo era, people used to shout “Kagiya” and “Tamaya” while watching fireworks displays. Kagiya was the oldest fireworks maker in Japan, and Tamaya was the second. They would alternate their fireworks displays on the banks of a river. Kagiya was in the lower course of a river, and Tamaya was in the upper. People would shout the makers’ names in admiration.
The Tamaya Company burned itself and the half of the town accidentally, and got extinguished in 1843. In those days, an accidental fire was a felony charge. Tamaya got asset forfeiture. The master of Tamaya, Ichibee, was banished.
As for Kagiya, they are still alive, and their master is the fifteenth-generation now.
Anyway. Besides, there are now quite a few fireworks manufacturers. So, few people shout “Kagiya” and “Tamaya” today.
Regardless, small children enjoyed shouting "Kagiya" and "Tamaya" this year. Their parents may have told them to shout it when they watch fireworks. Their voices were very cute.

Thank you.

[Koir]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

Koir, what do you think?

"Fireworks Display"

Every August 15, there is a fireworks display held close to where I live. I watched and enjoyed it again this year.
In the Edo era, people used to shout “Kagiya” and “Tamaya” while watching fireworks displays. Kagiya was the oldest fireworks maker in Japan, and Tamaya was the second. They would alternate their fireworks displays on the banks of a river. Kagiya was in the lower course of a river, and Tamaya was in the upper. People would shout the makers’ names in admiration.
In 1843, the Tamaya Company burned itself and the half of the town in an accidental fire. In those days, such a thing was a felony charge. As a result, the government put an end to the company and forced it to sell all its assets. The master of Tamaya, Ichibee, was banished.
Kagiya still exists, and their master is the fifteenth-generation now.
Nowadays, there are many fireworks manufacturers. So, few people shout “Kagiya” and “Tamaya” during fireworks displays.
Regardless, small children enjoyed shouting "Kagiya" and "Tamaya" this year. Their parents may have told them to shout it when they watch fireworks. Their voices were very cute.

Thank you.

"Extinguished" is a word used mostly to describe how a fire is put out, so saying a company was "extinguished", to my thinking, doesn't fit the context. Looking at the post again, it seems to read better if the legal and government concepts are explained as "asset forfeiture" may not be known by most of the post's readers.

I'm sure this is not the case, but in compositions where the knowledge level of the audience is not known, it's safer to explain things in relatively uncomplicated ways. This builds up understanding in the audience that they will remember in future posts that use the more technical term "asset forfeiture".

Other than that, just a few different word choices were made, again to increase ease of reading and understanding.

Hope that helps, Yuri.

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by Koir

"Extinguished" is a word used mostly to describe how a fire is put out, so saying a company was "extinguished", to my thinking, doesn't fit the context.

A dictionary on the internet says it’s “extinguish”. I don’t have any other way to know words I want to say. Finding a new word is very hard.
Now I know “extinguish” is put out fire and doesn’t mean end. “The government put an end to the company.” Thank you.

Looking at the post again, it seems to read better if the legal and government concepts are explained as "asset forfeiture" may not be known by most of the post's readers.

Isn’t “asset forfeiture” a common term?
A dictionary says a Japanese common word “zaisanbossyuu” is “asset forfeiture”. So I thought everyone would understand what happened reading “asset forfeiture”.
Is that wrong?

I'm sure this is not the case, but in compositions where the knowledge level of the audience is not known, it's safer to explain things in relatively uncomplicated ways. This builds up understanding in the audience that they will remember in future posts that use the more technical term "asset forfeiture".

Is “asset forfeiture” a technical term?

As a result, the government put an end to the company and forced it to sell all its assets.

Actually, the government didn’t force it to sell its assets. The government took all its assets. The dictionary says “asset forfeiture” means that. Is this wrong?

I’m feeling like I’m lost in a maze.

[Koir]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

Is “asset forfeiture” a technical term?

To me it isn't, as I have taken Accounting training and could reasonably guess the meaning. Unfortuneately in this case, my arrogance has caused unnecessary confusion. I apologize, Yuri.

Actually, the government didn’t force it to sell its assets. The government took all its assets. The dictionary says “asset forfeiture” means that. Is this wrong?

See my above explanation. I didn't look up the term myself, and made what turned out to be an incorrect guess as to its meaning.

Your revision is correct. The governement took the assets instead of forcing the company to sell them.

I’m feeling like I’m lost in a maze.

I am truly sorry for all this confusion, Yuri. My arrogance and lack of proper research is to blame.

[girigiri]

Originally Posted by masaegu

Except we never say 会社は締めくくられました.

You're at it again as if the ban had taught you nothig.

Why, thank you for so kindly pointing out my poor choice of wording. What would the correct term be? 解散させられました, perhaps?
ah... "was dissolved" might be a better turn of phrase than "was wound up" at that.

[Koir]

Originally Posted by girigiri

Why, thank you for so kindly pointing out my poor choice of wording. What would the correct term be? 解散させられました, perhaps?
ah... "was dissolved" might be a better turn of phrase than "was wound up" at that.

Can I suggest both of you take this discussion to threads specifically made for it? This thread is about English language understanding, after all...