Well, I thought we started talking about the problems at the beginning of the thread, and I guess I was lead to my opinion about silly semantics by this:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Ack! What "centrifugal force" is that?
Besides, even if there were a centrifugal force (which there's not), I don't think that's the idea behind tenkan; tenkan still uses the opponent's force.
I do agree that you can turn without that having much to do with enveloping people - unless the context of that is that someone is clinging on to you while you are turning. It is just that what one school calls tenkan can be completely different from what another school calls tenkan and they are probably just as correct as each other. Maybe we can say the term we mean, and if it is really unclear, ask politely if the person means whatever we are guessing. Whoa, manners...