I think we may be getting to the heart of the matter. I think also I may be cross-referencing threads, and I know that's confusing because I'm already confused by all these similar-sounding threads. But...
But that's not how games rules work. An allowance for an action in one situation does not apply to other situations.
But that's not how language rules work.
Although all humans share the same attributes, we have them in varying proportions, and for historical and geographical reasons clusters occur that can be described as cultural differences. We are here talking about Japan, and one of the most famous studies of cultural differences was Ruth Benedict's analysis of Japanese culture as opposed to the West's. Japan was a shame culture; the West's was a guilt culture. We say to a child you MUSTN'T do that. Japanese say that it's SHAMEFUL to do that. The study is now regarded as flawed in several respects, and I'm oversimplifying. But the core idea that cultural differences exist (within a state as well as between states) seems valid and useful.
Forgetting shame and guilt, a common divide we see in discussions of rules is what we can roughly describe as prescriptive and descriptive sides. The prescriptive side has a loud voice in the West. When you a see of rules in English, you instinctively assume there is an unspoken introduction that says, "This is what you MUST do and what CAN do." Japanese texts by and large are descriptive and start with a different unspoken assumption: "This is what WE JAPANESE (or WE PROS) do."
Both approaches can lead to confusion and arguments. The question is not automatically which approach is better, but which approach is actually in force. In the case of Japanese rules, the Japanese descriptive approach is obviously in force. Any attempt to wrestle the Japanese text into a western-style prescriptive text is doomed to failure, and is fundamentally dishonest.
A characteristic of prescriptive texts is that the writer will try to define words and concepts first and then try to fit all the following text to those definitions. It's a worthy goal, perhaps, but typically leads to constipated language, and it ignores the human propensity to bring up new or freak conditions and to say, "Ah, but if...?"
A characteristic of descriptive texts is that they very much depend on language, Instead of constipation they can lead to diarrhoea. A change of era or fashion can lead to words altering meaning or nuance, and can have the same effect as a change of diet. People from one generation or culture or background can see the same words in different ways.
Despite that, on the whole most people seem to prefer descriptive texts to prescriptive ones. We seem to resent any attempts to control us. A deeper analysis may be that prescriptivists are seeking ORDER. Descriptivists are seeking HARMONY.
If I'm right about that, and also if I'm right in saying that the Japanese rules are descriptive, a huge amount depends on language.
That means the onus is on us, in this case, to sort out what the Japanese are describing. In other posts I have tried to pinpoint a lot of the prior debate on rules in Japan that informed their attempts to write rules. There are many other parts of the context that I haven't touched on (e.g. parallel attempts to internationalise go, or even a touch of nationalism). It is that whole context that gives words, even technical terms, their nuances. It goes without saying that Japanese nuances are different from western nuances (and American nuances differ from English, etc). So how do we grasp those different nuances?
What I am leading up to is really for CDavis, as he has mentioned using DeepL and jisho for translations, because they are free. I suspect that may be a problem. I would suggest he should buy a proper paper dictionary rather than a copy of Games of Shuei.
Computer/app dictionaries, at least the free ones, seem to be generated by computer nerds just piling up unordered lists of words. Translation programs, at least the free ones, rely on looking for matching phrases in as large an unchecked corpus as possible and damn the context. That's fine if you just want a quick fix and your life doesn't depend on it. But if you really want to start on the (endless!) path of understanding the nuances, you need a dictionary lovingly prepared by a linguist who understands both languages and language in general. The differences are rarely immediately apparent, but a good linguist's dictionary is compiled in such a way that the nuances are weighted and ordered and (especially important) they pick up on the points that most often cause confusion. For Japanese I would therefore strongly recommend buying Kenkyusha (the "Green Goddess"), the old not the new Nelson, and Martin's reference grammar. They may be expensive but they will last a lifetime. I have over 300 dictionaries (and my wife has been known to complain she lives in a library). Nowadays I very rarely have to consult them, and if I do it's usually the 13-volume Morohashi Chinese-Japanese dictionary, which I like because it tends to give you the various nuances in source (i.e. date) order, rather like the OED. But despite their lack of current use, I treasure these books. Indeed, the Morohashi is on a shelf of its own facing me as I type, and every time I look up I see it and a warm glow comes over me.
Then I turn back to Rules19 and a cold shiver comes over me...
