Re: Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 11
I wonder what, in light of this discussion, you think of the utility of the Sugawara edition with Bieri's parallel "functional" translation side by side with the more "literal" translation (I don;t have it to hand as I am travelling but I believe my edition also has the written Japanese -- (kana + romaji). It seems to answer closest to Dan's desire for the "word for word. However, it also seems a bit problematic for his proposed thesis that the set-piece waza were a "mistaken" aspect -- because those poetic/mythic images are cheek by jowl with the depictions of the set-piece waza -- and have been apparently so conjoined since they were originally published together in 1933, as I understand it. It certainly allows one to tentatively conclude they were intended to be construed together.
Since I view the poetic/mythic language as a means for describing mainly subjective impressions in nonetheless concrete or narrative terms, the pairing seems entirely complementary. If there anything from the native understanding that makes this construction of the work unreasonable or unsupportable?