Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
Quote:
|
Joshua Reyer wrote:
To further add fuel to the fire, we have this sentence from Professor Goldsbury's quotation:
‘ƒm"ƒ~•ƒjƒnŠO˜Z•A"˜Z•‹yŠO"bA""bƒAƒŠ—Kƒmƒj˜ŽƒX
A no-frills, fairly direct translation with no attempt at the cruces would be:
"The ways of stepping the feet are outside-roppo, inside-roppo as well as outside-tomoe and inside-tomoe. This is taught in practice."
Tomoe means "eddy, swirl". This sentence is notable for being completely ignored by Stevens and Saito/Pranin. Stevens throws in a completely made up sentence that bears the slightest of resemblance to the original. Anyone want to take a crack at those terms?
|
A "tomoe" is a spiral - it makes complete sense for anybody who's spent time with Dan...
Best,
Chris
|
Hi Chris
Makes more and more sense as time goes on doesn't it? Even with this recent attempt at translating an established model as
"eddies and swirls" we both know about spiraling the legs; since spiraling the legs is ages old (and the founder mentioned spiraling elsewhere as well), what do we do now... debate something millions know about and where it fits in with so many other arts? And with whom?
Once again, when we finally get to read the actual words we read established concepts that all fit and make sense.
This bring up another question tied in with Josh's observation.
Quote:
|
"Well, technically he didn't specifically say 'hanmi'; he said 'open the feet in six directions'." That doesn't address the problem. The purpose of translation is to communicate ideas from one language to the other. "Open the feet in six directions", the direct translation, makes no sense prima facie; it requires some note or explanation of what that term means.
|
Since we now have had his actual words laid out, those educated in certain principles he was discussing can understand the clear reference
with no notation.
There are possibly a thousand or so modern aikido-ka here who understand that particular reference; both historically and practically
How come his early deshi
did not?
I am sure there will apologist who will say that they did, and they chose a dumbed down version to translate for us outsiders. If you want to go there, then show me the use of Ueshiba's correct terminology within the his early deshi's teachings. I have never heard of them or read further references to them. I have read most of the material published. Where is it?
I suggest, (as several deshi also admit) that they didn't get it and they didn't care. and were actually not capable of nor versed in these concepts and hence had no real ability to translate them correctly. Some have even admitted they regret not listening to him more.
We may have some interesting days ahead as people capable of the translation work get more experienced and conversant in internal principles and skills that Ueshiba was actually doing and researching.
Dan