ことを何の脅威とも思っておらず

[zuotengdazuo]

精霊がこちらのことを何の脅威とも思っておらず、消失するのも、精霊の気まぐれに過ぎないのだということを。

Hi. Is the underlined part a set phrase? If so, what does it mean? If not, could you please explain the grammar behind ことを何の脅威とも思っておらず?

By the way, why is the を in red used at the end of the sentence? What grammar phenomenon is it?
Thank you.

 

[Toritoribe]

That's not a set phrase, but just a variation of a structure A を B と思う "to think(or consider, judge, interpret, etc.) A as B".
e.g.
彼女は彼（のこと）を英雄（だ）と思っている。
She considers him as a hero./She considers that he is a hero.

何の～も is for complete negation in a negative sentence, and ～のこと is used there to make clear the direction of emotion, as in 彼女のことが好きだ, 嫌いだ, 憎い, うらやましい, etc..

を at the end of a sentence shows that it's an inversion, or the following part is omitted since it's obvious from the context. It seems to me it's the former. The preceding sentence is 知らないのだ or like that, isn't it?

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you, toritoribe-san!

を at the end of a sentence shows that it's an inversion, or the following part is omitted since it's obvious from the context. It seems to me it's the former. The preceding sentence is 知らないのだ or like that, isn't it?

The preceding sentence is as follows:
書類上はASTの働きによって精霊撃退した、ということになるのだろうがーー折紙を含め現埸で直接戦っている隊員たちは皆、理解していた。
So do you mean the op sentence is the object of 理解していた?

Oh, by the way, what does ということになる mean here?

 

[Toritoribe]

The preceding sentence is as follows:
書類上はASTの働きによって精霊撃退した、ということになるのだろうがーー折紙を含め現埸で直接戦っている隊員たちは皆、理解していた。
So do you mean the op sentence is the object of 理解していた?

Yes, that's right. A normal word order is 隊員たちは皆、精霊がこちらのことを何の脅威とも思っておらず、消失するのも、精霊の気まぐれに過ぎないのだということを理解していた.

Oh, by the way, what does ということになる mean here?

"It follows that~", "it means that~", "it's interpreted that~" or like that. I would translate it something like: "it's written/reported as ~ on the document, but..."

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you again!

"It follows that~", "it means that~", "it's interpreted that~" or like that.

The context is that the purpose of a skilled combat troop called AST is to kill a kind of living thing called 精霊. AST is no match for 精霊, which disappears at will every time during the battle with AST, but AST would claim that they repelled 精霊 instead of saying that 精霊 disappeared on its own in their record, perhaps because they want to take the credit.
These are the preceding sentences:
結局今日の戦闘も、精霊の消失により幕引きとなった。
消失、といっても、精霊は死んだわけではない。
要は、空間を超えて逃げられただけだ。

So do you suggest that the clause 書類上はASTの働きによって精霊撃退した、ということになるのだろうが means something like “it means that according to the records, it’s through the effort of AST that the 精霊 has been repelled”?

 

[Toritoribe]

It seems that I edited my previous post while you were writing. Sorry.

It's written/reported as "精霊 was/were repelled by the efforts of AST" on the document, but...

EDIT:
This is a trivial thing, but 精霊撃退した is a typo of 精霊を撃退した, isn't it?

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you again!

"It follows that~", "it means that~", "it's interpreted that~" or like that. I would translate it something like: "it's written/reported as ~ on the document, but..."

It's written/reported as "精霊 was/were repelled by the efforts of AST" on the document, but...

I have posted the context and the previous sentences in post #5. Would that change your answer?
If it wouldn’t, I don’t quite understand how come the meaning "It follows that~", "it means that~", or "it's interpreted that~" changes into “It’s written/reported as...” in your translation?
Does this ということ(になる) refer to 書類上はASTの働きによって精霊を撃退した or something else?

EDIT:
This is a trivial thing, but 精霊撃退した is a typo of 精霊を撃退した, isn't it?

Yes, it’s a typo. Sorry.

 

[Toritoribe]

The answer is the same. The structure is 書類上は「ASTの働きによって精霊を撃退した」ということになる. The fact is actually 精霊 just disappeared, but it means/it's interpreted as "精霊 was/were repelled by the efforts of AST" on the document, i.e., it's written/reported as "精霊 was/were repelled by the efforts of AST" on the document.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Oh. I get it! Much appreciated!