Life In 19x19

ez4u wrote:Also I guess I am confused how people would accept for example Kahneman's work on cognitive biases like 'framing' but reject the idea of linguistic relativity.

Every study of framing that I know about involves the issue of word choice within a single language that possesses terms with varying emotional resonance. So it's a bit of a leap from that to any kind of view of linguistic relativity.

And from that point, I'd say that John's original point shouldn't be tied to linguistic relativity, even if that's a fun digression (that I'm a little guilty of). The Japanese language has words for invasion, just like English. What differs isn't the expressive resources of the language, it's the metaphors, images and word choice of go writers, teachers, and players that would be doing the work here.

Uberdude wrote:P.S.

John Fairbairn wrote:I have gone on for years about boundary play being a better way of translating yose than endgame, and many people accept the logic - but then go away and say endgame (or yose, but still meaning endgame).

I got banned from KGS for furthering this cause

LOL

well, that blows my plans to bring up that discussion there for fun. don't want to ruin my perfect non-ban record

hyperpape wrote:

ez4u wrote:Also I guess I am confused how people would accept for example Kahneman's work on cognitive biases like 'framing' but reject the idea of linguistic relativity.

Every study of framing that I know about involves the issue of word choice within a single language that possesses terms with varying emotional resonance. So it's a bit of a leap from that to any kind of view of linguistic relativity.

And from that point, I'd say that John's original point shouldn't be tied to linguistic relativity, even if that's a fun digression (that I'm a little guilty of). The Japanese language has words for invasion, just like English. What differs isn't the expressive resources of the language, it's the metaphors, images and word choice of go writers, teachers, and players that would be doing the work here.

We do have words with different resonances, but we don't use them, so (in English) we tend to say things like "Well, he's invading your territory - you need to fight back!" If we used a different argot to denote the invasion the resonance would be different, but we don't so it isn't.

(I am recalling now that you and I had an argument about this once before... We're rather far apart on the question of whether a concept (say, of a virus) can plausible be said to be a condition for a belief (say, that measles is caused by a virus), so it's not surprising we disagree on this too.)

jts wrote: We do have words with different resonances, but we don't use them,

I think that was Hyperpape's point.

Splatted wrote:

jts wrote: We do have words with different resonances, but we don't use them,

I think that was Hyperpape's point.

He seems to draw a distinction between a language, on the one hand (presumably something one can lug around in a dictionary), and how you use words to communicate with people, on the other; whereas I disagree. On his construal, ez4u is making a dubious leap, because in any dictionary you can probably find the right words to get a point across in an arbitrarily precise manner. On mine, it's a natural step, because the way people actually are in the habit of speaking is not arbitrarily precise.

Uberdude wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:I have gone on for years about boundary play being a better way of translating yose than endgame, and many people accept the logic - but then go away and say endgame (or yose, but still meaning endgame).

I got banned from KGS for furthering this cause

Since Japanese players also use yose to mean endgame, I'd give it up as a lost cause.

RobertJasiek wrote:So which basic types of invasions are there?

Answering my own question, I distinguish these basic types of invasions:

- splitting an extension along the side
- living and having to live inside an opposing sphere of influence with or near the first invasion stone
- living and having to live inside an opposing sphere of influence either a) with or near the first invasion stone or b) by sacrificing it and living elsewhere in that sphere
- living and having to live either a) inside an opposing sphere of influence or b) by running or connecting out
- creating an option by invading but temporarily playing elsewhere for either a) later living inside an opposing sphere of influence or b) allowing the opponent to kill
- hybrids of the cases above

Have I overlooked some cases? Would you prefer different classifications, which and why?

RobertJasiek wrote: Have I overlooked some cases? Would you prefer different classifications, which and why?

Yes, a very important one: the attacking invasion (or is this what you meant by point 1? Though it is common for an attacking invasion to split, sometimes it doesn't split but just removes the base.) Also you've not mentioned (though perhaps your 5 is a bit similar) what Yilun Yang calls a disrupting invasion, which is basically a nuisance invasion which you use to make profitable exchanges. You seem to be mainly focused on his third type, the territory destroying invasion.

Uberdude wrote:the attacking invasion (or is this what you meant by point 1? Though it is common for an attacking invasion to split, sometimes it doesn't split but just removes the base.)

In case of splitting an extension on the side, I consider it also an invasion. When the opposing formation is higher, I would "only" speak of "creating a large scale cut [e.g., for the purpose of attacking at least one opposing group]".

Ok, if you enter an opposing eyespace to reduce it to fewer than 2 eyes and so attack the group, it can be called an "attack" as well as an "invasion". An "invasion attack" or "attacking invasion":)

disrupting invasion, which is basically a nuisance invasion which you use to make profitable exchanges.

By location, it can be called an invasion. By purpose, I would call it a "sacrifice". So it is a "sacrifice invasion". (If sacrifice is only an option, then my type 5 is related indeed.)

You seem to be mainly focused on his third type, the territory destroying invasion.

Just because I tend to call the other kinds you mention large scale cut, attack or sacrifice. If you go strictly by location, then there are more types. There is also the "mochikomi invasion";)

Interesting topic!

A question for those knowlegeable: Do the words for invasion in Korean and Chinese reflect the "styles of play" we see in the different servers/opponents?

Since apparently Korean servers have very agressive opponents, could it be that the Korean language has words with different meanings for certain go terms that would justify that agressiveness?

(I amnot a linguist, and have not delved into the previously mentioned research.)

A question for those knowlegeable: Do the words for invasion in Korean and Chinese reflect the "styles of play" we see in the different servers/opponents?

I don't know about the servers, but the words used in Korean and Chinese may well reflect differences.

The main Korean word is probably 침 입 하 다, which does have associations with aggression and can certainly be translated as "invasion" outside of go. Also seen is 쳐들ㅓ가 다 which is a little softer, and might best be rendered as "encroachment", but a translation outside of go as "invasion" would not be unreasonable.

Chinese is, I think, less aggressive. 打入 is common in go, and reasonably close to Japanese uchikomi, though it is used also to mean "infiltrate" outside of go. Also used is 投入 which commonly means "invest" but does have military uses such as "pour (troops) in".

The paradigm of increasing associations of aggression (if you believe any of this) would therefore be Japanese -> Chinese -> Korean, which perhaps fits reality.

jts wrote:

Splatted wrote:

jts wrote: We do have words with different resonances, but we don't use them,

I think that was Hyperpape's point.

He seems to draw a distinction between a language, on the one hand (presumably something one can lug around in a dictionary), and how you use words to communicate with people, on the other; whereas I disagree. On his construal, ez4u is making a dubious leap, because in any dictionary you can probably find the right words to get a point across in an arbitrarily precise manner. On mine, it's a natural step, because the way people actually are in the habit of speaking is not arbitrarily precise.

Maybe at one point, I had well formed opinions about what makes something a feature of the language vs. just a matter of our habits. Today I don't.

So I'll just say that on the face of it, there's a significant difference between the ideas that John mentions and the strong claims that were originally made for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. One might attach a lot of theoretical baggage to that difference (and one might also argue that there's no real difference at all), but I'm not going to do so, beyond noting that it's there.

John Fairbairn wrote:
Also seen is 쳐들ㅓ가 다 which is a little softer, and might best be rendered as "encroachment", but a translation outside of go as "invasion" would not be ...

It's 쳐들어가다, but the typo is not really related to your point.