Life In 19x19
http://www.lifein19x19.com/

GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents
http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=18415		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Cassandra [ Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:36 am ]
Post subject:  GERMAN interpretation of J89's intended contents
No ©.

JapaneseGERMANEnglish (completely non-binding, for your convenience only)
日本囲碁規約（全文）
財団法人日本棋院及び財団法人関西棋院は、昭和二十四年十月に制定した日本棋院囲碁規約を改定することとし、ここに日本囲碁規約を制定する。この規約は対局者の良識と相互信頼の精神に基づいて運用されなければならない。		Japanische Go-Regeln (Volltext)
Die Nihon Ki-in Foundation und die Kansai Ki-in Foundation haben beschlossen, die Nihon Ki-in Go-Regeln, die im Oktober 1949 aufgestellt wurden, zu überarbeiten und stellen hiermit die Nihon Go-Regeln auf. Diese Regeln müssen im Geiste des gesunden Menschenverstands und des gegenseitigen Vertrauens zwischen den Spielern angewandt werden.		Japan Go Rules (Full Text)
The Nihon Ki-in Foundation and the Kansai Ki-in Foundation have decided to revise the Nihon Ki-in Go Rules which were established in October 1949, and hereby establish the Nihon Go Rules. These rules must be administered in the spirit of common sense and mutual trust among players.
第一条（対局）
囲碁は、「地」の多少を争うことを目的として、競技開始から第九条の「対局の停止」、までの間、両者の技芸を盤上で競うものであり、「終局」までの間着手することを「対局」という。		Artikel 1 (Partie)
Das Go-Spiel ist ein Geschicklichkeitswettbewerb auf dem Brett zwischen zwei Spielern vom Beginn des Spiels bis zum "Stopp der Partie", wie in Artikel 9.1 beschrieben, mit dem Zweck eines Wetteiferns um das Ausmaß von "Gebiet". Die bis zum "Ende der Partie" ausgeführten Züge werden "Partie" genannt.		Article 1 (Game)
The game of Go is a contest of skill on the board between two players from the start of the game to the "stoppage of the game", as described in Article 9.1, for the purpose of competing for the extent of "territory". The moves made up until the "end of the game" are called the "game".
第二条（着手）
対局する両者は、一方が黒石を相手方が白石をもって相互に一つずつ着手することができる。		Artikel 2 (Züge)
Beide Spieler dürfen jeweils einen Zug machen, wobei ein Spieler mit den schwarzen Steinen und der andere Spieler mit den weißen Steinen spielen.		Article 2 (Moves)
Both players may play one move at a time, with one player playing with black stones and the other player playing with white stones.
第三条（着点）
盤上は、縦横十九路、その交点三百六十一であり、石は、第四条に合致して盤上に存在できる限り、交点のうちの空いている点（以下「空点」という）のすべてに着手できる。着手した点を「着点」という。		Artikel 3 (Besetzte Punkte)
(1) Das Brett besteht aus einem Gitter aus jeweils neunzehn horizontalen und vertikalen Linien und dreihunderteinundsechzig Schnittpunkten. Diese Schnittpunkte werden im Folgenden "Brett-Punkte" genannt.

(2) Ein Stein kann auf jeden leeren Punkt unter den "Brett-Punkten" (im Folgenden "leere Punkte" genannt) gespielt werden, solange er gemäß Artikel 4 auf dem Brett existieren kann und soweit Artikel 6 diesem Zug nicht entgegensteht. Der Punkt, auf dem ein solcher Zug gemacht wird, wird "besetzter Punkt" genannt.		Article 3 (Occupied points)
1. The board consists of a grid of nineteen horizontal and vertical lines each and three hundred and sixty-one intersections. These intersection points are called "board points" in the following.

2. A stone may be played at any empty point among the "board-points" (hereinafter referred to as "empty points") as long as it can exist on the board in accordance with Article 4, and insofar as Article 6 does not conflict with this move. The point at which such a move is made is called "occupied point".
第四条（石の存在）
着手の完了後、一方の石は、その路上に隣接して空点を有する限り、盤上のその着点に存在するものとし、そのような空点のない石は、盤上に存在することができない。		Artikel 4 (Existenz von Steinen)
(1) Nach Beendigung eines Zuges existieren die Steine eines Spielers auf ihren "besetzten Punkten" auf dem Brett, solange sie entlang der Linien des Brettes einen "leeren Punkt" neben sich haben. Steine ohne einen solchen "leeren Punkt" dürfen sich nicht auf dem Brett befinden.

(2) Züge, die zu solch einem Zustand führen würden, sind verboten.		Article 4 (Existence of stones)
1. After the completion of a move, a player's stones exist on their "occupied points" on the board as long as they have an "empty point" next to them along the lines of the board. Stones without such an "empty point" may not be on the board.

2. Moves that would lead to such a condition are prohibited.
第五条（取り）
一方の着手により、相手方の石が前条に基づき盤上に存在することができなくなった場合は、相手方のその石のすべてを取り上げるものとし、これを「ハマ」という。この場合、石を取り上げた時点をもって着手の完了とする。		Artikel 5 (Entfernung von Steinen)
(1) Wenn infolge eines Zuges einer Seite Steine der anderen Seite nicht gemäß des vorigen Artikels auf dem Brett existieren können, werden alle diese Steine der anderen Seite vom Brett genommen, und als "Gefangene" bezeichnet. In diesem Fall ist der Zug abgeschlossen, wenn die Steine entfernt wurden.

(2) Diese Art von Zug wird auch als das 'Schlagen' gegnerischer Steine bezeichnet.		Article 5 (Removal of Stones)
1. If, as a result of a move by one side, stones of the other side cannot exist on the board in accordance with the preceding article, all these stones of the other side shall be taken off the board, and these are called "prisoners". In this case, the move shall be completed when the stones are removed.

2. This kind of move is also called 'capturing' the opponent's stones.
第六条（劫）
交互に相手方の石一個を取り返し得る形を「劫」という。劫を取られた方は、次の着手でその劫を取り返すことはできない。		Artikel 6 (Ko-Form)
Die Form, in der abwechselnd jeweils ein Stein des anderen Spielers vom Brett genommen werden könnte, wird als "Ko-Form" bezeichnet. Der Spieler, dessen Stein in einer "Ko-Form" genommen wurde, darf in diese "Ko-Form" mit dem nächsten Zug nicht zurückschlagen.		Article 6 (Ko-shape)
The shape in which one of the other player's stones could be taken from the board in turn is called "ko-shape". The player whose stone was taken in a "ko-shape" may not capture back into this "ko-shape" with the next move.
第七条（死活）
１、相手方の着手により取られない石、又は取られても新たに相手方に取られない石を生じうる石は「活き石」という。活き石以外の石は「死に石」という。
２、第九条の「対局の停止」後での死活確認の際における同一の劫での取り返しは、行うことができない。ただし、劫を取られた方が取り返す劫のそれぞれにつき着手放棄を行った後は、新たにその劫を取ることができる。		Artikel 7 (Leben und Tod)
(0) Die L&T-Statusbestimmung erfolgt nach dem "Stopp der Partie" gemäß Artikel 9.1. Die Statusbestimmung für die Steine eines Spielers beginnt jeweils mit einem Zug des Gegners.

(1 A) Steine, die durch den Gegner nicht vom Brett genommen werden, erhalten den Status "Lebens-Steine". Andernfalls …
(1 B) Werden auf allen "Brett-Punkten", auf denen sich diese vom Brett genommenen Steine befanden, erneut Steine etabliert, die vom Gegner nicht vom Brett genommen werden, so erhalten diese Steine ebenfalls den Status "Lebens-Steine". Andernfalls …
(1 C) Wird, nachdem diese Steine geschlagen wurden, wenigstens ein Stein etabliert, der vom Gegner nicht vom Brett genommen wird, so erhalten diese Steine den Status "Seki-Steine". Andernfalls …
(1 D) In allen anderen Fällen erhalten diese Steine den Status "Todes-Steine".

(2) Nach dem "Stopp der Partie" gemäß Artikel 9.1 ist das Zurückschlagen in "Ko-Formen" blockiert und verboten.
Verzichtet der Spieler, dessen Stein in einer "Ko-Form" genommen wurde, auf einen Zug, wird die Blockade des Zurückschlagens für eine solche "Ko-Form" aufgehoben. Nach der Aufhebung der letzten Blockade darf wieder von neuem in "Ko-Formen" zurückgeschlagen werden.

(3) Während der L&T-Statusbestimmung ist die Wiederholung einer Zugfolge verboten, in der von beiden Seiten eine unterschiedliche Anzahl von Steinen geschlagen wird.		Article 7 (Life and Death)
0. The L&D status determination is carried out after the "stoppage of the game" according to Article 9.1. The status determination for a player's stones always starts with an opponent's move.

1a. Stones that are not removed from the board by the opponent are given the status "life stones". Otherwise ...
1b. If stones are re-established on all the "board points" on which these captured stones were located, which are not removed from the board by the opponent, these stones are also given the status "life stones". Otherwise ...
1c. If, after these stones have been captured, at least one stone is established that is not removed from the board by the opponent, these stones are given the status "seki stones". Otherwise ...
1d. In all other cases these stones receive the status "death stones".

2. After the "stoppage of the game" as described in Article 9.1, capturing back into a "ko-shape" is blocked and forbidden.
If the player whose stone was taken in a "ko-shape" renounces a move, the blockade of capturing back into such a "ko-shape" is removed. After the last blockade has been lifted, it is allowed to capture back into "ko-shapes" again.

3. During L&D status determination, the repetition of a move sequence in which a different number of stones are captured by both sides is prohibited.
第八条（地）
一方のみの活き石で囲んだ空点を「目」といい、目以外の空点を「駄目」という。駄目を有する活き石を「セキ石」といい、セキ石以外の活き石の目を「地」という。地の一点を「一目」という。		Artikel 8 (Gebiet)
(1) "Brett-Punkte", die von "Lebens-Steinen" nur einer Seite umgeben sind, werden "nützliche Punkte" genannt.

(2) "Leere Punkte", die keine "nützlichen Punkte" sind, werden "nutzlose Punkte" genannt.

(3) "Lebens-Steine", die entlang der Linien des Brettes keine "nutzlosen Punkte" neben sich haben, und die keine "Seki-Steine" umschließen, werden "werthaltige Gruppen" genannt.
Die "nützlichen Punkte" der "werthaltigen Gruppen" werden "Gebiet" genannt.		Article 8 (Territory)
1. "Board points" surrounded by "life stones" of only one side are called "useful points".

2. "Empty points" that are not "useful points" are called "useless points".

3. "Life stones" that do not have any "useless point" next to them along the lines of the board, and do not enclose any "seki stones", are called "valuable groups".
The "useful points" of the "valuable groups" are called "territory".
第九条（終局）
１、一方が着手を放棄し、次いで相手方も放棄した時点で「対局の停止」となる。
２、対局の停止後、双方が石の死活及び地を確認し、合意することにより対局は終了する。これを「終局」という。
３、対局の停止後、一方が対局の再開を要請した場合は、相手方は先着する権利を有し、これに応じなければならない。		Artikel 9 (Ende der Partie)
(1) Wenn ein Spieler auf einen Zug verzichtet, und dann der andere Spieler auf seinen Zug verzichtet, dann erfolgt ein "Stopp der Partie".

(2) Nach dem "Stopp der Partie" müssen sich beide Spieler über Leben und Tod der Steine und das "Gebiet" einigen. Dies wird als das "Ende der Partie" bezeichnet.

(3) Beantragt eine Seite nach dem "Stopp der Partie" die Wiederaufnahme der Partie, hat die andere Seite das Recht, zuerst zu spielen, und muss dem Antrag stattgeben.		Article 9 (End of the Game)
1. When one player abandons a move, and then the other player abandons the move, then there is a "stoppage of the game".

2. After the "stoppage of the game" both players must agree on the life and death of the stones and the "territory". This is called the "end of the game".

3. If, after the "stoppage of the game", one side requests that the game be resumed, the other side has the right to play first and must accept the request.
第十条（勝敗の決定）
１、終局の合意の後、地の中の相手方の死に石はそのまま取り上げ、ハマに加える。
２、ハマをもって相手方の地を埋め、双方の地の目数を比較して、その多い方を勝ちとする。同数の場合は引き分けとし、これを「持碁」という。
３、勝敗に関し、一方が異議を唱えた場合は、双方は対局の再現等により、勝敗を再確認しなければならない。
４、双方が勝敗を確認した後にあっては、いかなることがあっても、この勝敗を変えることはできない。		Artikel 10 (Feststellung von Sieg oder Niederlage)
(1) Nachdem das "Ende der Partie" vereinbart wurde, werden die "Todes-Steine" des Gegners aus dem "Gebiet" genommen und den "Gefangenen" hinzugefügt.

(2) Die "leeren Punkte" des gegnerischen "Gebietes" werden mit "Gefangenen" aufgefüllt, und die Anzahl der jeweils resultierenden "leeren Punkte" wird verglichen.
Derjenige, der die größere Anzahl hat, wird zum Sieger erklärt. Bei einem Gleichstand wird das Spiel als "Unentschieden" bezeichnet.

(3) Erhebt eine Seite Einspruch gegen das ermittelte Ergebnis, müssen beide Seiten Sieg oder Niederlage durch eine Wiederholung der "Partie" bestätigen.

(4) Nachdem beide Seiten den Gewinner bestätigt haben, kann der Gewinner unter keinen Umständen mehr geändert werden.		Article 10 (Determination of Victory or Defeat)
1. After the "end of the game" has been agreed upon, the "death stones" of the opponent in the "territory" shall be taken away and added to the "prisoners".

2. The "empty points" of the opponent's "territory" are filled up with "prisoners" and the number of each resulting "empty points" is compared.
The one who has the greater number is declared the winner. In case of a tie, the game is called a "draw".

3. If one side objects to the result determined, both sides must confirm victory or defeat by replaying the "game".

4. After both sides have confirmed the winner, the winner may not be changed under any circumstances.
第十一条（投了）
対局の途中でも、自らの負けを申し出て対局を終えることができる。これを「投了」という。その相手方を「中押勝」という。		Artikel 11 (Aufgabe)
Ein Spieler kann mitten in der "Partie" erklären, dass er oder sie verloren hat und die "Partie" beenden. Dies wird als "Aufgabe" bezeichnet. Der Gegner wird "Sieger durch Aufgabe" genannt.		Article 11 (Resignation)
A player may, in the middle of the "game", declare that he or she has lost and end the "game". This is called "resignation". The opponent is called "winner by resignation".
第十二条（無勝負）
対局中に同一局面反復の状態を生じた場合において、双方が同意した時は無勝負とする。		Artikel 12 (Weder-Sieg-noch-Niederlage)
Tritt die gleiche Spielsituation während einer "Partie" auf und beide Spieler sind damit einverstanden, wird die "Partie" zu einem "weder-Sieg-noch-Niederlage" Ereignis erklärt.		Article 12 (Neither-win-nor-defeat)
If the same game situation occurs during a "game", and both players agree, the "game" is declared a "neither-win-nor-defeat" event.
第十三条（両負け）
１、第九条の対局停止後、対局者が有効な着手を発見し、その着手が勝敗にかかわるため終局に合意できない場合には両負けとする。
２、対局中に盤上の石が移動し、かつ対局が進行した場合は、移動した石を元の着点に戻して続行する。この場合において対局者が合意できない場合は、両負けとする。		Artikel 13 (Beide Spieler verlieren)
(1) Wenn die Spieler, nach dem "Stopp der Partie" wie in Artikel 9.1 beschrieben, einen gültigen Zug entdecken und sich nicht auf das "Ende der Partie" einigen können, weil der Zug für Sieg oder Niederlage entscheidend ist, verlieren beide Spieler.

(2) Wird ein Stein auf dem Brett während der "Partie" verschoben und die "Partie" ist noch im Gange, so wird der verschobene Stein an seine ursprüngliche Position zurückgebracht und die "Partie" wird fortgesetzt. Können sich die Spieler in einem solchen Fall nicht einigen, so verlieren beide Spieler.		Article 13 (Both Players Lose)
1. If, after the "stoppage of the game" as described in Article 9.1, the players discover a valid move and cannot agree on the "end of the game" because the move is crucial to victory or defeat, both players lose.

2. If a stone on the board is moved during the "game" and the "game" is still in progress, the moved stone is returned to its original position and the "game" continues. In this case, if the players cannot agree, both players shall lose.
第十四条（反則負け）
一方が以上の規則に反した場合は、双方が勝敗を確認する前であれば、その時点で負けとなる。		Artikel 14 (Regelverstoß)
Verstößt ein Spieler gegen eine der oben genannten Regeln, verliert er die "Partie", soweit beide Spieler den Sieger noch nicht bestätigt haben.		Article 14 (Rule Violation)
If a player violates one of the above rules, he loses the "game" as far as both players have not yet confirmed the winner.



_____________________
EDITED
Japanese preamble inserted.
Typos.
German text Article 13.2.
Article 8: replacement of "eye" and "dame".
Article 3: reference to Article 6.

_____________________
Answers to "Principles used = ?" (simply follow the link)
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
How / with which principles have you derived / created the German version?
Author:  Harleqin [ Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
The japanese preamble seems to have been mistakenly overwritten by the fourth article text in that table.
Author:  Cassandra [ Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Harleqin wrote:
The japanese preamble seems to have been mistakenly overwritten by the fourth article text in that table.

Thank you very much for this kind tip.
Author:  John Fairbairn [ Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
From a very quick first glance, a few things arise at once for me.

1. A minor point: the Japanese intro text is wrong - it shows a repeat of Article 4. I haven't checked everything - this just leapt out at me.

2. Several articles in the German and English have extra numbered paragraphs which do not exist in the Japanese.

3. Much more important: I have never seen the English text you give. I have only seen the one given in Go Almanac, and I infer from comments in various threads here that that may be the one many other people are referring to. Some parts of the English text you quote are better than the GA version, most are worse.

More specifically, Article 8 is horrendously wrong. There is no mention of eyes in the Japanese (and so by extension there should be no mention of Augen in German). In Article 9, "stoppage of the game" could only be said by a native with cloth ears.

In Article 13.2, the German does not marry up with either the Japanese or the English (the 進行した has been ignored in the German and in English the translation is ambiguous).

A nitpicky point but Article 12 (English and German) does not correspond to the Japanese in that neither taikyoku nor mushobu are put in "" in the Japanese, and mushobu does not in practice quite mean the literal weder Sieg noch Niederlage, since that leaves open the possibility of a draw, which has traditionally been excluded in Japanese go. The Japanese nuance is understood to mean 'no result' or 'void game', and until the modern era games ending thus were expected to be replayed. This has been a long-standing topic of discussion in Japan, and the existence of mushobu is admitted as a defect. But that doesn't alter the way they think about it in practice. However, it is true that mushobu outside of go can have the connotation of a tie.

If this English text and the Davies text (which is also problematical in parts) are circulating in parallel, it is no wonder (eye-opening in fact :)) that there has been a permanent state of war. If this English was in fact produced by a German speaker (as looks highly likely to me), then it tells me that that person didn't fully understand either the Davies English or the Japanese.
Author:  Cassandra [ Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
RobertJasiek wrote:
How / with which principles have you derived / created the German version?

Answering will start tomorrow ...
Author:  Cassandra [ Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
John Fairbairn wrote:
From a very quick first glance, a few things arise at once for me.

1. A minor point: the Japanese intro text is wrong - it shows a repeat of Article 4. I haven't checked everything - this just leapt out at me.

Thank you very much for this kind tip. However, Harleqin was faster. Has been adjusted in the meantime.

Quote:
2. Several articles in the German and English have extra numbered paragraphs which do not exist in the Japanese.

This was done on purpose.
Please be so kind to refer to the title of this thread. The German text is not intended to be a translation of J89's contents. As I already mentioned, there are many obvious mistakes in the Japanese original, and the use of different meanings of same same kanji does not really help general understanding.
And please do not forget what is written between the lines in the Japanese original (in the legal text, the commentary, and the L&D examples).

Quote:
3. Much more important: I have never seen the English text you give. I have only seen the one given in Go Almanac, and I infer from comments in various threads here that that may be the one many other people are referring to. Some parts of the English text you quote are better than the GA version, most are worse.

No wonder. It's my best amateurish translation of the German text into the English language. Thought that this might be of interest to some forum users. Otherwise, I would consider it inappropriate to discuss with Robert in German here in this forum. Several insights in German might also be of some use in the English-speaking world. Even if these are published in German English.

Quote:
More specifically, Article 8 is horrendously wrong. There is no mention of eyes in the Japanese (and so by extension there should be no mention of Augen in German). In Article 9, "stoppage of the game" could only be said by a native with cloth ears.

"Eye" is a technical term (recognisable by the inverted commas) that has been utilised in this context for decades. It has the advantage that common understanding of "eye" is not so very far away for what the technical term "eye" is used for here. Probably someone will find a more suitable / practicable term in the course of the forthcoming discussion, who knows?
You will find additional comments on the chosen usage of technical terms in one of the forthcoming replies to Robert's request.

Before you (or anyone else) use "wrong", "mistake", or whatsoever with a similar meaning:
Check beforehand to what extent the application of the disputed text gives a result that does not correspond to the intended result in J89.
I do not intend to transfer Japanese frameworks to Germany. I just want to make sure that the application of a German rule text by Germans leads to the same results as the application of a Japanese rule text by Japanese. It should be clear from the outset that the two texts cannot be congruent.
If the "for your convenience" part of my initial posting is too upsetting for English native speakers, everyone is free to tweak it.

Quote:
In Article 13.2, the German does not marry up with either the Japanese or the English (the 進行した has been ignored in the German and in English the translation is ambiguous).

Thank you for the tip. Something must have happened during copy & paste.

Quote:
A nitpicky point but Article 12 (English and German) does not correspond to the Japanese in that neither taikyoku nor mushobu are put in "" in the Japanese, and mushobu does not in practice quite mean the literal weder Sieg noch Niederlage, since that leaves open the possibility of a draw, which has traditionally been excluded in Japanese go. The Japanese nuance is understood to mean 'no result' or 'void game', and until the modern era games ending thus were expected to be replayed. This has been a long-standing topic of discussion in Japan, and the existence of mushobu is admitted as a defect. But that doesn't alter the way they think about it in practice. However, it is true that mushobu outside of go can have the connotation of a tie.

For one reason or the other I did not want to use "no result". For the moment, I did not find a better technical term. BTW, "draw" is another technical term, so there can be no confusion whatsoever.
For the usage of technical terms in general, see above.

Quote:
If this English text and the Davies text (which is also problematical in parts) are circulating in parallel, it is no wonder (eye-opening in fact :)) that there has been a permanent state of war. If this English was in fact produced by a German speaker (as looks highly likely to me), then it tells me that that person didn't fully understand either the Davies English or the Japanese.

You are absolutely true. See above. :D
However, I always do my very best.
Author:  John Fairbairn [ Sun Oct 17, 2021 4:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Quote:
"Eye" is a technical term (recognisable by the inverted commas) that has been utilised in this context for decades. It has the advantage that common understanding of "eye" is not so very far away for what the technical term "eye" is used for here. Probably someone will find a more suitable / practicable term in the course of the forthcoming discussion, who knows?


Well, I've played go for five decades and I've never come across your usage. It may be different in Germany or Austria but I have played in both countries and read a fair amount of German go books and magazines and don't recall coming across it there.

Of course you can choose to use it - it's a free world. But why confuse readers (English readers at least) by overlapping with one of the commonest, most useful and totally standardised go terms? Especially when there exists an equally common, useful and standardised term for usage in the rules.

For the benefit of others listening in who are feeling lost, the term we are talking about is 目, which means 'eye' in the ordinary language (if it is a noun), but in go, where it is a counter, it is used to mean 'point' (in the sense of e.g. 'scoring point'). It is used in phrases such as コミ五目半 - komi is 5.5 points, or 黒が21目で白が３７目、よって１６目差のしょうりだ (kuro ga 21 moku de shiro ga 37 moku, yotte 16 mokusa no shourida) - Black has 21 points, White has 37 points, so Black wins by a margin of 16 points. There is also an old usage of 目 for star point which survives in the terms komoku, takamoku, ootakamoku, mokuhazushi and seimoku - the 9 stone handicap. (It used to be said that the difference between a top pro and a beginner was four seimokus; and a seimokude (井目手) is a total duffer's move). 目 is also used for stone, as in gomokunarabe - the game of 'five in a row' and sometimes specifically as 'handicap stone', but it's usually considered best to use the counter 子　for stones, e.g. a four-stone handicap is referred to as 四子 (strictly read shishi but usually yonji and even, perversely, yonmoku (i.e. for 四目). You will also come across non-technical usages in go such as 四本目の線 (the fourth line; but 目 is read me here - it means ~th). If we venture outside of go, of course there are many more non-eye usages, such as 目盛り, the scale on the side of measuring jug.

All these usages and not an eye to be seen. In fact, 目 is not even a noun here - it is a counter (a measure word). And it can count other things, such as stones. (Multiplicity of use for counters is normal in Japanese and Chinese; we have counters in English, such as 'six head of cattle').

When you talk to an English go player about eyes, what he sees are things like two eyes, false eyes, meari menashi, making an eye, the eye-stealing tesuji, and so on. In all these cases, the Japanese eye word is 眼. It is mostly read me: kakeme 欠け眼 (false eye), katame 片眼 (single eye), metori 眼取り (eye stealing), metsukuri 眼つくり (eye making), mekaki 眼欠き (a throw-in to make a false eye). But 'two eyes' is usually nigan 二眼. However, there is a nice distinction possible. If you say contemptuously that a player has been reduced to a mere two eyes after a bout of bullying (ijime) you say (with optional sneer) he has 'me futatsu'.

Now, what about contexts where both 目 and 眼 come up together. Meari menashi 眼あり眼なし is one example. 目 does not come up in the phrase, but in the position there will also be liberties, or dame 駄目. If you mix up your two me's you'll never learn how to win a semeai (semi-eye, geddit!!?).

But there is a simpler and more obvious example. Explaining the 5-point (note that word) nakade shape, i.e.gomoku nakade, sometimes abbreviated to gonaka, you might say it is a 五目あっても眼のない形 (a shape that has no eyes even though there are 5 liberties). Note that you mustn't infer from this that 目 = liberty. It is a counter for liberties, which is why there is no ga, wa or any other particle between it and atte.

So, as you can see, there is a very clear distinction in Japanese, and in English. Why obscure it?
Author:  Cassandra [ Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
John Fairbairn wrote:
So, as you can see, there is a very clear distinction in Japanese, and in English. Why obscure it?

I think that the extent of my understanding of the Japanese language is great enough to enable me to distinguish between the different meanings and uses of "目".

However, it is NOT the Japanese language that matters here! Neither does the used translation for a Japanese technical term.

The internal content structure of the rules text is simply terrible.
:w1: "Life and Death" in Article 7 is defined long BEFORE the game is stopped (this will happen in Article 9.1).
:w2: Supposed tools for scoring are introduced in Article 8 long BEFORE there is anything of value to be determined (this will be the case in Article 10.2). This is followed by an inconsistent application of the technical terms used.

Therefore, it is probably no wonder that various tongue twisters have come out in the rules text.

:b1: "Independently alive" stones do not surround anything valuable (i.e. scorable), as long as they are connected to a "dame" on their outside. The result of the L&D status determination for this kind of stones is completely independent of the number of their outside liberties.
:b2: Before Article 10.1 becomes effective, "empty points" surrounded by "alive" groups of only one player are either unoccupied or occupied. Does this mean that the flats are rented both completely empty and furnished?
:b3: After Article 9.2 became effective (but only under the assumption that all "dame" of "independently alive" groups have been occupied), there is little point in opening a big barrel to declare that a remaining empty board point is equivalent to a scoring point. This is self-evident, and therefore could be done in a very few words.
Author:  kvasir [ Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Congratulation on the translation. I think many people will appreciate the hard work!

Even if the reaction may seem negative it is just that many people do care about this text.

I want to second what John said about not translating 目 as "eyes". I'd say that translating it as "points" would be better.

Much has been said before that the text needs to be translated as Japanese would read it. I think translating 目 as "eye points" or "eyes" is an example of violating this intention. I don't know Japanese but I know enough Chinese to understand that this character is referring to "points in the game of Go" and Wiktionary literally has this as a defined meaning in Japanese. It is hardly controversial to translate as "points"?

Introducing "eyes" as integral to the concept of territory could be described as something being lost in translation.
Author:  Cassandra [ Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
kvasir wrote:
Congratulation on the translation. I think many people will appreciate the hard work!

Even if the reaction may seem negative it is just that many people do care about this text.

Thank you.

Quote:
I want to second what John said about not translating 目 as "eyes". I'd say that translating it as "points" would be better.

Much has been said before that the text needs to be translated as Japanese would read it. I think translating 目 as "eye points" or "eyes" is an example of violating this intention. I don't know Japanese but I know enough Chinese to understand that this character is referring to "points in the game of Go" and Wiktionary literally has this as a defined meaning in Japanese. It is hardly controversial to translate as "points"?

Introducing "eyes" as integral to the concept of territory could be described as something being lost in translation.

Seemed to be much more an issue that I ever imagined.

Replaced "eye" / "dame" with "useful points" / "useless points".
I think that "useless" is one valid (common) meaning of "駄目", so using the opposite for "目" is hopefully considered appropriate by English native speakers.
Author:  Harleqin [ Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
John Fairbairn wrote:
Quote:
But 'two eyes' is usually nigan 二眼. However, there is a nice distinction possible. If you say contemptuously that a player has been reduced to a mere two eyes after a bout of bullying (ijime) you say (with optional sneer) he has 'me futatsu'.


So, would that be 眼二つ or 目二つ then?
Author:  Cassandra [ Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
RobertJasiek wrote:
How / with which principles have you derived / created the German version?

Approach #1: Stringent use of technical terms.

The use of technical terms in J89 is inconsistent and sometimes ambiguous. For example ...

territory = territory - prisoners

... could be a valid instruction in the source code of a software programme -- at first sight.

However, territory has been defined as a technical term with a specific meaning.
Thus, territory is a CONSTANT, NOT a variable.
Thus, your editor will immediately complain about the left side of the instruction above.

----------

In Japanese, {「...」} / {『...』} is utilised e.g. for marking technical terms, similar to the usage of {"..."} / {'...'} / {„...“} / {‚...’} / {“...”} / {‘...’} in Western languages.

I used STRG + H for formatting the bracketed Japanese characters in a different colour throughout the entire text.
I used {"..."} for bracketing their German (and English) counterparts throughout the ENTIRE text. This included some additional editing.

As you can easily imagine, AI returns for the occurrence within a continuous text e.g. {After the game stopped, ...}, but never {After the "stoppage of the game", ...}.

For several of these terms, the continuous bracketing might look like overdoing things, but here in J89 the situation is more difficult than e.g. in your J2003.
Leaving your own stringent usage of technical terms aside for a moment, it will be evident that terms like {black-stone}, {white-string}, {hypothetical-ko}, {permanent-stone}, {local-1}, {capturable-2} are technical terms that are unknown in the common language usage. Therefore, these terms can be used as they are, no misunderstanding will arise.

Here, within the translation(s), once you are SURE that misunderstandings are EXCLUDED, you might want to enhance the readability of the text by replacing e.g. {"game"} with {game} and by dismantling e.g. the {"stoppage of the game"} issue.

----------

Where necessary to preserve the unambiguousness of the terms, I have used different technical terms in the translation(s) for one (seen literally) with different meanings in the original.

----------

To be continued ... (simply follow the link)
Author:  John Fairbairn [ Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Cassandra: You have clarified your intentions (though not J1989's still misunderstood intentions), and it seems now there is a simple fix. Just change your title: to "German interpretation of J1989's contents".

There is a distinction made by careful speakers of English, and most certainly by professional linguists, between translators and interpreters.

The people who sit in offices at the EU typing up what they think a treaty text says in one language into another language, for publication, are translators (and above them they have, or should have, revisers and editors). The people who sit in booths with earphones on and pass on what they hear in a conference hall in one language into a microphone in another language are simultaneous interpreters. People who sit around a table together with two groups of businessmen or the like, and tell each group what the other group has said, are called consecutive interpreters.

The distinction boils down usually to time. A translator has time to think, and there is also time for revisers and editors to change whatever he has put down on paper. Interpreters have no time to think. As a result they are more prone to mistakes. These have happened on the world stage, when the interpreters who stand behind presidents whispering their interpretations have mis-whispered. With sometimes dramatic effect.

The distinction is tellingly encapsulated in the story of a brilliant interpreter at the UN who came up with something like the following for her audience of non-Polish speakers: "The Polish delegate has just made an untranslatable joke; he would appreciate it very much if you all laughed." They all laughed. Had this lady been asked to translate the joke on paper, I think she was brilliant enough to have found a word play that could pass as a translation, but strictly that, too, would have been an interpretation.

Something is always lost in translation, and the borderline between translation and interpretation, which depends on how much is lost, is bound to be fuzzy. But your additional comments have made it plain to me that you are way over on the interpretation side. Which is fine, and potentially useful.

But using the correct title would even better alert readers to what follows and what to look for.
Author:  John Fairbairn [ Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's contents
Code:
However, territory has been defined as a technical term with a specific meaning.
Thus, territory is a CONSTANT, NOT a variable.
Thus, your editor will immediately complain about the left side of the instruction above.


A separate issue from the above post of mine.

I think you are imposing your own cultural norms here. Japanese people are much less hung up on definitions than we are (and I'd confidently say English speakers are less hung up than German speakers are). For example, the Nihon Ki-in dictionary of technical terms, which you would take to be a repository of definitions, "defines" 地 simply as "地所.実利." Which is as useful as a fart in a perfume factory. In real life, say if you are explaining (which is a form of defining) 地 to a beginner, you'd more likely use something 陣地. A term you might never see or hear in go otherwise.

This is not to say that Japanese cannot be exact. But if they want to be so with terms, they will go beyond just putting the term in brackets (e.g. 「地」). The language round about will change. There will be lots of とは and lots of する (= 'shall' in the legal sense), for example. But go rules are not international treaties, and so in Japanese culture are not treated as such.

The Japanese approach is more like a conversation in English that might go: "Daddy, what's a dog?" "It's an animal that's got four legs and a tail and goes woof." Toddler is happy. Both sides ignore the facts that not all dogs go woof and that other animals have four legs and a tail and go something like woof. Then tea-time comes around. Wow! hot dogs for tea! "Daddy. This sausage hasn't got any legs. Why's it a dog?"

Thus, dog is a VARIABLE, NOT a constant.
Although toddler has immediately complained about the left side of the instruction above, Daddy will still assume he's a human being and not a computer.

He will therefore quite possibly not pile on more explanation or definition. A likely continuation of the conversation would be something along the lines of "Whisht, lad! Let your meat stop your mooth." As I can attest from personal experience.
Author:  Cassandra [ Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN interpretation of J89's contents
John Fairbairn wrote:
This is not to say that Japanese cannot be exact. But if they want to be so with terms, they will go beyond just putting the term in brackets (e.g. 「地」). The language round about will change. There will be lots of とは and lots of する (= 'shall' in the legal sense), for example. But go rules are not international treaties, and so in Japanese culture are not treated as such.

I am very well aware of this.

However, one of the explicitly (!) declared aims for establishing J89 (according to my interpretation of J89's introduction "序") was to support the internationalisation of the game of Go.

But the authors have not managed to create (/ concentrated on creating) a text that unambiguously reflected what was meant in Japan for a Western understanding, and that equally remained (just) clearly understandable for the Japanese audience. They wrote a text for the Japanese audience, hoping that Western interpreting would clearly result in what was originally meant.
Author:  jann [ Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
John Fairbairn wrote:
Cassandra: You have clarified your intentions (though not J1989's still misunderstood intentions), and it seems now there is a simple fix. Just change your title: to "German interpretation of J1989's contents".

I have asked this in the past: whenever an inventor presents his rule inventions, please make it clear it is a new invention and not something else. Not doing so will just lead to misunderstandings, and will leave a bad taste after it is cleared - regardless of the merits or flaws of the invention in question.

In this case, the text includes the "no ko recapture until all kos have been passed for", and the "enabled stones must be played after the original capture" rules. Both have been discussed in the past, and neither seems to work. The latter does not meet example #4 commentary, and outright fails in example #5 if the right side of the seki have more layers.
Author:  Cassandra [ Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
jann wrote:
The latter does not meet ... commentary ...

Don't believe everything that is written in the sections "Commentary" and "L&D Examples", as there were and are several OBVIOUS mistakes included. I think that I already mentioned this several times before, didn't I?

Additionally, the section "L&D Examples" includes several moves that are completely unnecessary for assessing the L&D status of the group in question. As compensation, the move sequences for assessing much more complicated cases are withheld. Really without any reason?


Apart from that the following also applies to you
Cassandra wrote:
Before you (or anyone else) use "wrong", "mistake", or whatsoever with a similar meaning:
Check beforehand to what extent the application of the disputed text gives a result that does not correspond to the intended result in J89.
I do not intend to transfer Japanese frameworks to Germany. I just want to make sure that the application of a German rule text by Germans leads to the same results as the application of a Japanese rule text by Japanese. It should be clear from the outset that the two texts cannot be congruent.

Just concentrate on the intended L&D status of the groups in question. Can it be reached or not by applying the procedures given?
Author:  jann [ Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
Cassandra wrote:
Just concentrate on the intended L&D status of the groups in question. Can it be reached or not by applying the procedures given?

jann wrote:
neither seems to work. The latter ... outright fails in example #5 if the right side of the seki have more layers.
Author:  Cassandra [ Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: GERMAN translation of J89's intended contents
jann wrote:
neither seems to work. The latter ... outright fails in example #5 if the right side of the seki have more layers.

What is the intended result GIVEN BY / INCLUDED IN J89?

Quite apparently, such a multi-layer-seki example was not deemed worthy of inclusion in J89's L&D collection. Most likely because it was considered to be of far greater practical importance than the least likely of the existing examples, right?
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/