If we constantly try to brainthink new explanowords for the existing allocation of mouthwords from several different geographic regions, we're soon confoundified because existing mouthwords are already 90% cephoutilised. This results in linguoculturalkamf. The guilty lemma lies in thinking that the viscosity of existing language is 0, which leads us to falsely conclude that mouthwords are infinitely bendable. In practice, the bendability of mouthwords is severely curtailed by existing preconceptual inertia, and the fierce resistance of the current tenants, to the retro-occupation, means that nobody can understand what you're trying to say.

Much better to employ a blue ocean strategy and synthogenify new mouthwords for greenfield exploitation. Here are some examples for consideration that don't suffer from coterminous utilisation:

- Morbolithic
- Lignopansphere
- Cosmochronoutility

With this kind of approach, we will surely solve all existing communication problems.

Language should be used to simplify, rather than complicate, after all.

(yes, this is an attempt at humour, but my point is serious )

_________________
David

Go Game Guru: Learn Go | How to Get Better at Go | Go Game Shop | Go Boards | Baduk TV

I don't like your mouthwords. They scare me.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

David, it's worth distinguishing between bad style (using greenfield to refer to words rather than to locations) and infelicities (cephoutilize and linguoculturakampf will be jarring to people who know both roots, and useless to anyone else) and fresh, striking ideas like "mouthwords" - which both amuse and help to analyze.

The way I see it, the go literature in CJK is often not strictly precise in its use of go terms. I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. This style of writing is often more fluid and less stilted.

Just as an example, I have read a book by Cho Hunhyun that uses the term bori-sunsoo (보리선수) in a way that is different from how lovelove has defined it. From what I can see, the CJK writers will often use a go term if it serves to spark enough mental connections in the reader's mind as to why a move is good or bad. This style has its downsides as well, but I am happy enough with this style that I keep on buying many go books with my disposable income.

I think there is a tendency in the Western go world to take the CJK writings on go too seriously and have pedantic (and perhaps even a bit snooty?) discussions about what certain terms mean when the CJK writers themselves are quite flexible in their use of those terms. It may even be the case that a writer's own style of play affects how he interprets and employs certain terms.

I would suggest that the English-speaking world come up with its own precisely defined set of go terms rather than tackle the impossible task of giving precise definitions to CJK go terms that will be consistent with their varied usages in the entirety of the CJK go literature.

...that or just stop arguing about the meaning of CJK go terms.

I don't think it is a question of style, as much as the fact that go terms in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean have been around so long that they have acquired the normal ambiguity of regular language. It is a mistake to assume that a go term has a single, precise meaning.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

That's probably true. For whatever reason (and being around for a long time is a good one), things seem to be this way.

Language, when used for go theory, must guide towards good decision making. Decisions can be simple or complex. When decisions are simple, then language must describe the simplicity. When decisions are necessarily complex, then language must describe the complexity instead of pretending false simplicity.

The CJK writers should take their writings as seriously as Western readers take them; it would ease our understanding greatly.



You don't need to suggest it; I am doing it anyway:)



There are still knowledge gaps in Western go theory understanding, such as best use. We should not dismiss CJK input just because it is highly ambiguous. ALA knowledge transfer is still useful, understanding intended original meanings of terms is also still useful.

Do you think that once they were unambiguous?;)



It is the holy grail that each go term has one and only one meaning!:)

My dictionaries say this:

usage = use; act or mode of using [...] [1]
usage = the way in which particular words in a language, or a language in general, is really used; [...] the way [something] is treated or used [...] [2]
use = the act of using; the state or fact of being used [...] [1]
use = [the putting of something to a particular purpose] [...] [2]

IIUC, usage is the general form / description [of using something] while use is the particular application / performance of usage in the particular case. If my guess is right, then I do not understand why I should speak of best use when I mean best usage. When I speak of the general strategic concept, then this should be best usage, shouldn't it? When, in a particular position a particular way of using well is studied, then it should be best use, shouldn't it? So far in this thread, I have talked about the general form, i.e., best usage was right - John, why do you think that it was linguistically wrong?

mighty = having greater power; strong [...] [1]
mighty = very large and powerful; very successful and famous; extremely large and important; very [...] [2]
powerful = having great power; mighty [...] [1]
powerful = [having] power; [strong and forceful] [...] [2]

So what the heck is the difference between mighty and powerful?! Both are so mächtig:)

[1] The Chambers Dictionary
[2] Cambridge International Dictionary of English

To Robert:



That is only your interpretation - and after never having read it in Japanese?????



Again showing you are out of touch with native English. For very many people a target, being something you aim at with a weapon, belongs to, or is, the opponent. In the example above, outside influence is something that you want to belong to you and so 'target' is not really appropriate. Confusingly, perhaps, many people would accept 'goal', which is something of the opponent's you aim at with a ball, but word associations apply here, and since you get a point if you score a goal, many people are apt to think of goal as something that belongs to them.



As I hope the above comments imply, you are asking the wrong question (and this applies in general to many of the go words). It is not so much that they are different, but that we use them with different associations, i.e. in different contexts. 'Mighty' has associations with things, such as gods, lords or superheroes, that inspire awe, and so it is not a very common word in everyday language (unless you go to church daily). 'Powerful' is more a word for everyday use, though 'strong' is probably the favourite. Stop and think in German for a moment. Would you use kraeftig, gewaltig, stark, einflussreich, wirksam, leistungsfaehig or heftig wherever you use maechtig? Yet all could easily be translated as powerful (though not all as 'mighty'), and I'm sure as a native you can think of more such words.

As to usage, it is usually a mass noun and so has an element of quantification in it. E.g. water usage would normally be taken to mean how much water you have used rather than how you have used it (which would be use of water). It is easy, however, to imagine contexts in which these 'usages' are reversed, even for a quantifiable word like water, and for non-quantifiable words like 'language' usage can indeed mean how a word is used. As several people have said above, you just have to go with the native feeling and accept that all words have different context-driven associations. And unfortunately you can't override these associations simply by declaring what context you mean. You can try, of course, but don't be surprised if people ignore you. In practice, what most people (i.e. your audience as an author) seem to find most useful in trying to get a handle on something is NOT for the writer to restrict ideas to a single word with a chimerically tight definition, but instead to define by using a whole sentence, or paragraph even, and (shock horror) examples, exploiting the apparent redundancy of the extra words to reach clarity. The idea is simply to knock out the associations and ambiguities inherent in all single words. To get back on topic, this is why redundancy can paradoxically be efficient.

But that's exactly my point. It only needs to be as complicated as necessary and no more so. When you increase the apparent complexity of something through your choice of language, you're failing in your stated aims above, and also failing those who would try to learn from you.

If you choose to bastardise the language, people will instinctively (reflexively if you're still claiming that instinct doesn't exist) reject or ignore your ideas because they grate against deeply rooted beliefs. Your new ideas are no match for these long held beliefs. This is how the brain deals with cognitive dissonance to allow us to keep functioning despite the constant contradictions in life. We all do it, and you are no exception.

_________________
David

Go Game Guru: Learn Go | How to Get Better at Go | Go Game Shop | Go Boards | Baduk TV

1) One must not restrict one's insight just because linguistic main stream suggests a restriction.

2) If you don't like 'target', why not speak of 'aim'. Then your linguistic restriction vanishes.

3) In computer science, 'target' can be used in the meaning of 'aim'.

4) For a purpose as a go term or something close as a go term, (2) is more powerful than (1).



Ah, thank you!



I see (well, only the theory so far; I need to watch contexts).



The encouraged implied ambiguity is not something I adopt. I define using precise language. This does not exclude the possibility of then explaining every textual part of a definition and of showing examples applying the definition or its parts.



Such I put in text commenting on definitions, but not in the definitions themselves. Definitions must be unambiguous. Redundancy inside the definitions creates unnecessary potential for contradictions and other ambiguity.



This can be achieved by text commenting on definitions and need not be in the definitions themselves.



It can be if it is used in the right places and right manners: outside the definition texts.

Now, on this I agree.



"you" and "your" used as generic pronouns?



This is a point for continuing use of 'efficiency', 'haengma' and 'best use' because one can reduce the amount of necessary explicit statements of scales of space and time. In particular, 'efficiency' always used in the sense of being local (to something being currently studied) avoids the necessity to declare the locale explicitly and to declare that larger spaces are not being meant.



I am not sure to what you are saying that I would be no exception.



Ah, now you certainly refer to my ideas. Wait a second, your statement is so general, that it affects all my hundreds of ideas. If we discussed all that here, the thread becomes too long. So can we, for the moment, restrict discussion to the thread topics of efficiency and sente?

EFFICIENCY

You claim that there would be a long held belief among go players for what is 'efficiency' used as a go term. Your claim is wrong:

There are only few sources in English go literature that attempt to describe what efficiency is. IIRC, all sources (except mine) do not describe it well enough. I have not seen a description of the term good enough to be remembered. Have you seen such in English literature other than mine? I have seen mainly examples with occasionally thrown in 'efficient' words. After seven years (1991-1998) of mentally storing such examples (for which efficient was used as a go term rather than as a common language word) in my head, finally I had enough context information available to describe the examples' denominator, which is expressed by my definition. If there were a long held belief of what (else) efficient as a go term meant, then such would have been circulated in literature, discussion or talk. Where do you see such? A few attempts were made, but the result has been a failure:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?Efficiency

How can my definition's idea be in conflict to deeply rooted beliefs when the latter are non-existent? The only apparent deep belief has been that the common English language word 'efficient' equalled the go term 'efficient'. This is as weak an objection as claiming a deeply rooted belief that 'thick stones arrangement' would mean 'great density and mass of nearby stones' because that is inferred from the common language meaning of 'thick'. Somebody trying to understand a go term by simply equating it with a common language's ordinary meaning of a word has not even started to understand the go term's meaning. Do you call such a weak understanding 'deeply rooted belief'? Maybe you are right that such a weak understanding deeply rooted belief wants to reject possibly better explanations closer to go term understanding. However, that is not a fault of those providing go term understanding, but it is a fault of improperly upheld naive, deeply rooted beliefs.

SENTE

"[a sequence is sente if] a player [...] can play elsewhere first"
"A player has sente if he can choose the region where to play next."
"A player has the initiative if he has sente for a succession of chosen regions."
(Joseki 2 Strategy, p. 26f.)

"A local endgame is sente for the player if these conditions apply:
- A local sequence started by the player ends by the opponent.
- A local sequence started by the opponent ends by the opponent."
(First Fundamentals, p. 199.)

Please explain how any of these definitions violates go players' deeply rooted beliefs! Don't you think that the converse it true?

The deeply rooted belief, in this case, is that efficiency is a vague term which can mean various things in various contexts. Your claim that is has a specific well-defined meaning is in conflict with that, and thus has no realistic chance of being accepted.

I am beginning to believe that people really don't understand efficiency, this is the only way to explain certain behaviors of the world. For example massive data centers using a nuclear reactors worth of energy just to run Java for the garbage collector(so they don't have to think), or people commuting 60+ miles to work in a car probably an SUV.

Interesting theory:) However, I disagree because, in literature, efficiency has been used in two different ways: a) as a vague common language term, b) as a go term with meaning related to that of my definition. For (a), I do not see convincing motivation for many to have created a deeply rooted belief. More specifically, efficiency is a property demanding comparison and valuation - this opposes maintaining vagueness. To have a deeply rooted belief in favour of vagueness, one would have to deny the obviously principally available extra information by comparison and valuation.



Quite contrarily, now that the thought of how efficiency can be understood more clearly is in the world, players will have a great difficulty to suppress that thought. Try to run away well with a group during your following games and tell me that you could forget about finding a balance between speed and safety;)

Knowledge is more powerful than absence of knowledge.

Some of them. Some of them still are. E.g., diagonal attachment, snapback, two move approach ko.

Some of them we probably ambiguous from the start. E.g., flower viewing ko, kikashi, heavy.

As a mathematical term, temperature has a precise meaning. Once it was adopted as a go term, it quickly became ambiguous

My guess is that territory was ambiguous from the start, or quickly became so. Ditto sente.

My guess is that yose was fairly precise at the start, but became ambiguous over time (in Japan).





By holy grail do you mean a chalice, a stone, or something more nebulous? (Just teasing.)

I think that if that were the case, more go terms would have only one meaning. Language is ambiguous because humans find that ambiguity useful. As I mentioned, temperature quickly became ambiguous when go players adopted the term. Why? Because it allowed them to say something they wanted to say. People are extremely good at disambiguating meaning based upon context. Sometimes things remain unclear, but people work it out.

I think that it is often a futile exercise, and not very rewarding, to try to disambiguate terms that have already become ambiguous. OTOH, within a defined context, it can be valuable to do so. For instance, in the context of evaluating positions and plays, it is useful to have precise meanings for sente and gote; in the context of go rules, it is useful to have a precise meaning for territory.

----

As for efficiency, I do not think that it is a go term at all.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I am working on it:)



Ambiguity in ordinary language can sometimes be useful. Ambiguity in go terminology is harmful.



Because there are different forms of temperature and each form deserves its term: local temperature, global temperature, ambient temparature.



If the context is given and clear.



Indeed: Japanese Rules, 11 years. Ko, 13.5 years. Ko threat, still working hard.;)



It is an "exercise" providing clear insight. Having unambiguous information about a concept can save many years of wasted attempts of understanding. E.g. until 2011, my missing clear understanding of what exactly (or in informal words almost exactly) thickness is made it much harder for me to improve to 5d in the years 1991 - 1998. Instead of readily learning how to use thickness, I was more busy with still trying to find out what thickness was.



The Go Player's Almanac shares your opinion, sigh:(

Not trying to hijack my own thread, but look at the way Chinese industry works for example. Their workers live near their factories. The train actually connects to the local transportation hubs as well as to the local factories, you can go from the bullet train to the subway to the airport. In the US, you can take a train or plane, but it drops you off in the middle of no where, and you still have to take a taxi to get anywhere. Industry in the US can use the train, but they would still have to unload the train and haul it across town.

Yes, I agree English speakers have only a vague notion of efficiency.