Quote: Sakai, Kato, Takemiya, Kim and Otake defined sabaki in terms of shape.
Quoting a list that includes bad translations or SL articles with bad examples does not progress the discussion. It merely illustrates why sabaki has become a problem in English. To misquote further compounds the problem.
Take the alleged Takemiya quote, for example (Enclosure Josekis). The quote/definition is not by him. It is in a list of definitions added by Ishi Press. If we look at usages actually attributable to Takemiya, we get the following, in which I extract the key words used in the English:
p. 4 makes light shape
p. 9 sabaki shape
p. 10 settles his group
p. 43 gets sabaki
p. 49 settles his group
p. 52 sabaki shape
p. 71 gets sabaki
p. 104 settle his group/sabaki shape
p. 105 easy sabaki/gives flexible shape
p. 118 settles his group
p. 125 uses the term "resilient shape" but does not uses 'sabaki'
p. 130 settles his group
p. 136 makes light sabaki shape
p. 154 sabaki rhythm/builds momentum for sabaki
p. 155 tesuji for sabaki
p. 169 settles the White group
p. 178 sacrifice to get sabaki
p. 196 sabaki tesuji
p. 200 settles himself/develops along the side
So, in 19 examples, 'light' appears twice and flexible once, and 'resilient' appears once but does not get the label 'sabaki'. Which rather shoots the appendixed definition out of the water.
In contrast 'settle' appears six times. There is also mention of 'sabaki shape' but for that there is actually a separate term, sabakigatachi, to describe the end result of the process of sabaki.
The most problematical translations here are 'get sabaki' and 'make sabaki'. They do at least contain a verb and so are acceptable, but they have the unfortunate effect of making 'sabaki' look like a definable object rather than a process.
Strictly, one could say there is a problem with 'settle a group' because that could include making two eyes or running away, which would attract other terms (e.g. shinogi), but they are perfectly acceptable here because each case is illustrated by an example diagram.
Underlying all this are interesting linguistic notions.
One is that each language has its own 'genius' - a preferred way of doing things. English is very fond of adverbial verbs in which we take a basic verb and attach an adverb to get a more nuanced meaning, and sometimes even a strange meaning, e.g. throw: throw in, throw away, throw out, throw back, but also throw up (and also throwback!). Speakers of Romance languages often have major problems with these when learning English.
In contrast, one of the main characteristics of Japanese is that it is very fond of verbal nouns. In general the verbal aspect dominates. Japanese likes to put the verb at the end of a sentence, where it is regarded as the most important word. English typically prefers a noun at the end. (SVO as opposed to Japanese SOV.) You see the difference best if you look at adverts. Japanese copywriters like to omit the verbs, knowing that the reader will easily supply it, and carry that 'doing' idea through subliminally. English copywriters instead like to do things like create a sentence that predicts a certain noun at the end but then changes it in a punning, joking or other emphatic way, typically the product they want you to buy.
Translating from Japanese to English requires us to get over this hurdle. Amateur translators in particular rarely get over the hurdle - and professionals often stumble, too - but instead they go round the obstacle. So, instead of trying to use a matching word like 'cope' for 'sabaku' they invent noun-based phrases such as 'get sabaki' or 'make sabaki'. There's a verb in there but it's a rather meaningless all-things-to-all-men kind of verb - it's the noun that matters, even if it's not actually translated!
This problem exist throughout go. Yose is a verbal noun. You wouldn't guess that from 'endgame'. Shimari is a verbal noun. It actually refers to enclosING a corner. You wouldn't guess that from 'making a shimari'.
There are many terms where it just so happens we can exploit a feature of Anglo-Saxon English where we have the same word used as either a verb or a noun (turn, bend, wish, vomit). We could, and sometimes do, use these for Japanese go terms, e.g. kiri (cut), but for some reason we tend to avoid them, e.g. 'bend' for hane has never gained traction.
A further problem is the western obsession not just with shape but with definitions. Many Japanese don't see sabaku as a go term. It's just an ordinary word in the ordinary language. It doesn't need defining. What makes it special in go is not its definition but its context, or its attributes.
If we look at sabaki/sabaku in those terms we can describe typical contexts or attributes, but we don't (maybe can't) define them.
For example, sabaki starts with the context of a predicament. Not every predicament betokens sabaki (a group with just three points space in a line is certainly in a pickle and needs a move at the centre to live - but that is not sabaki. But every sabaki starts with a predicament.
We then have a process of expedience to sort out that predicament - to 'cope' with it. (I don't like 'manage' because that often implies control. In sabaki you are the hunted not the hunter.) This process typically but not involves necessarily certain types of moves. These may be describable as light, flexible or resilient - or may not. They may be forcing moves. They may be inventive (tesuji) or sacrificial. They have to be something a bit out of the ordinary because you are in a pickle and you don't want to throw good money after bad. All you want to do is tide things over, get by, make the best of a bad job - cope.
At the end of this process, because stones have necessarily been added, you will, if successful, end up with a shape (the sabakigatachi) where you have typically not lived but you have got by - you have coped. This is a temporary reprieve, though. It is not the same as perfect life (and you may have had to give up something in return - sacrifices, loss of aji or forcing moves), but you have lived for another day.
|
