The bold bit is the crux of the current issue here isn't it; whether or not it's ok to use the word "aikido" descriptively to indicate similarity or whether it ought remain a discrete (and per my limited reading of this conversation, a more or less incomplete) definition? If it's ok to do so in Japanese, why not English? Simply because of localized conventions? What about when some of those Japanese conventions find themselves transplanted in an English-speaking area? Might there not be some acceptible cross-over?
After rereading the OP I think it's clear Dan's not saying that literally "the" complete practice of Aikido (whatever that might be) is everywhere in MMA. He's saying some essential aspects of Aikido are used by many high level MMA players and insofar as this is true, "Aikido" can be seen in MMA. It seems clear to me the OP is using Aikido as a descriptive term to relate similar aspects of different training systems and practices.
But that's not how language works. Ron and I have been using an "apple" analogy, so I'll stick with it.
I can say something is an apple and literally mean it--that is, that it is the fruit of a Malus domestica
tree; I can say that something is an apple and mean it metaphorically, as in "the Big Apple", or "the apple of my eye"--in which case the figurative comparison works precisely because
the person listening knows what I am talking about is not actually an apple; but I cannot say that a strawberry bush is full of apples and mean that it is full of red, curvy fruits with stems at the stop. That's not metaphor, it's just improper use of the word apple
. It would be accurate to say that the strawberry bush is full of things that in many ways are like apples, but not to call them apples.
I can say something is aikido and literally mean it--that is, that it is Ueshiba's Daito-based martial art; I can say something is aikido and mean it metaphorically, as in the oft-used phrase "verbal aikido"--in which case the figurative comparison works precisely because
the person listening knows that what I am talking about is not actually aikido; but I cannot say that an MMA match is full of aikido and mean that it is full of things that are in many ways like aikido. It is a misuse of the word.
I'll give OP the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is just making a semantic error, not the much more egregious error others are making in this thread of calling anything
aikido in which they find the principles of aikido. But it's still a semantic error that needs to be corrected, since the word in question is aikido