@Needs native check.

(@Needs native check.)
The English sentence seems good to me.)

Thanks!

I suppose Дэн = Dan, though? That's the common name, plus following the common transcription custom.

> I suppose Дэн = Dan, though?
> That's the common name, plus
> following the common transcription
> custom.

I believe Dan is short for Daniel.

But this sentence is a spoiler for Olga Gromyko and Andrei Ulanov's book «Космобиолухи», where Den is short for Denis. So I think this spelling is justified.

> Later, the readers get to know that Den is a cyborg that has refused to obey the orders of his master.

If you're going to use "his", then you should replace the second "that" by "who". Otherwise, "his" should be replaced by "its".

Yes, people do that. That doesn't mean that it's better to match personal pronouns with "who".

> If you're going to use "his", then you
> should replace the second "that"
> by "who". Otherwise, "his" should
> be replaced by "its".

Here's what Lexico.com (an online dictionary with definitions by Oxford University Press) says about the matter:

> It is sometimes argued that, in relative
> clauses, that should be used for non-human
> references, while who should be used
> for human references: a house that overlooks
> the park but the woman who lives next door.
> In practice, [...] the function of that is
> flexible. It has been used for human and
> non-human references since at least
> the 11th century
> (https://www.lexico.com/definition/that)

I'm not comfortable with making this change myself because I don't understand the reasons to change it.

I'm not willing to defend my usage either (apart from quoting the dictionary, which seems to say my usage is OK), so I've unowned the sentence. Feel free to adopt it.

Objectivesea has. Thanks, both of you.