Life In 19x19

Kirby wrote:I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm going to give responses for some sort of closure.

Bill Spight wrote:...
Do you disagree?

Yes I do. Even to non go players, anyone that's studied Japanese for maybe a month has at least seen 段 in a word like 階段, for example. Even if you don't study Japanese at all, and just pick up a travel guide, you'll find phrases like:

こんにちは。
階段はどこですか。
お手洗いはどこですか。

I'd say that 段 ranks up there with characters like 学　and 花 in terms of difficulty.

I am surprised that you disagree. Let's recap what went before:

Bill Spight wrote:Now, one thing that both John and I knew, but did not say, was that one meaning of dan, in Japanese, is step.

Kirby wrote:You seem to presume that this is information that a lot of people don't know.

Bill Spight wrote:Do you disagree?

What you say not does not contradict the fact that a lot of people do not know that step is one meaning of dan in Japanese.

Kirby wrote:But it doesn't really matter to me if you intended to "teach" us some Japanese as much as it seems that you are trying to use this as a means to argue from a higher authority (eg. "What John and I know, but you guys don't, is that..."), when really, 段 is a basic kanji that most everyone that has any interest in the language knows.

I fail to see your point about arguing from higher authority when it is something that John and I, who are the debaters, in your view, both know and agree about. Our difference was not about Japanese, but about the usage of grade in English, which is different on different sides of the Atlantic, something that I said in my note that you quote, and that John clarified.

John Fairbairn wrote:To clarify (I hope): yes, as Bill infers, I have mainly been pointing up a difference in US/UK usage.

It does seem to me that you are beating a dead horse.

Bill Spight wrote:...
It does seem to me that you are beating a dead horse.

Well, again, it seems that you are avoiding the primary issue that brought about my involvement in this discussion. Conveniently, this is the part that was not addressed in your reply:

Do I? Have any explanation? Given only the quoted paragraph - which is what I was responding to in the first place - what other interpretation am I to adopt?

The first sentence of the paragraph stands on its own - you argue that grade for kyu is not right for go usage. But what are the subsequent sentences intended to portray if not a distinction between grade and class based on order?

It's true that I may have gotten annoyed with your bringing up the "step" discussion, which I thought was irrelevant - and I still think it is in the context of the quote which I originally pointed out. But it's still true that your original quote indicates that a sense of order was suggested, when it is arbitrary:

Minor point:

I think that grade for kyu is not right for go usage. In school, first grade comes before second grade, which comes before third grade, etc. Class, however, fits the usage of kyu. First class is higher than second class, which is higher than third class, etc. Grade fits the usage of dan.

The only reason I really pursued the whole argument about how dan is a simple kanji is because it appeared to me that this was being used as an argument, when it did not seem to have anything to do with the part that I originally quoted.

---

My involvement in this discussion can be appeased if you can explain to me how the following quote:

Minor point:

I think that grade for kyu is not right for go usage. In school, first grade comes before second grade, which comes before third grade, etc. Class, however, fits the usage of kyu. First class is higher than second class, which is higher than third class, etc. Grade fits the usage of dan.

does not suggest a contrast between "grade" and "class" by distinguishing by order. And if John does not say that this is what he thought was irrelevant, then it is something that I believe, myself, to be irrelevant, because no such ordering distinction exists for "kyu", as "kyu" can be used both with low numbers being of high quality, or with high numbers being of high quality.

Here's another statement where I think Bill and I can claim to be in complete agreement: "Sheesh!"

It could be that some people do not know the meaning of dan - I was mainly turned off that that was being used as an argument, when the point of the matter had nothing to do with "step",

Kirby: I do hope I'm wrong (perhaps forlornly since I have no idea what you are really disputing) but what is coming over to me is that you have completely missed Bill's point that grade is from Latin gradus. This means a "step" (though not necessarily a "dan" because it can mean step as in "pace" as well as a step up a staircase). I took his reference to Japanese dan not as hotdogging about Japanese but as a gentle reminder to some to consider the Latin, i.e. focus on regular steps. Dan = step is a perfectly good argument in general. I just happen to think that it's undermined here by different UK/US usages and associations for "grade". I got the impression that Bill now acknowledges that (thank you, Bill - world peace saved for another week!). Also, no-one seems to have disputed that Shuho had in mind gradings as steps on the handicap scale, and steps are obviously 100% relevant there. So there's no palpable disagreement - except yours.

Or is it simply a case of "De equis mortuis nil nisi trollum"?

John Fairbairn wrote:...

Kirby: I do hope I'm wrong (perhaps forlornly since I have no idea what you are really disputing) ...

I will try to be more clear. My dispute is in the idea that the following quote:

Minor point:

I think that grade for kyu is not right for go usage. In school, first grade comes before second grade, which comes before third grade, etc. Class, however, fits the usage of kyu. First class is higher than second class, which is higher than third class, etc. Grade fits the usage of dan.

Does not imply a distinction between "grade" and "class", based on order - because I think that such a distinction is arbitrary when you are talking about "kyu".

To me, I cannot see how this quote does not attempt to portray the idea that "grade" and "class" can be distinguished based on order. In addition to this, I also believe that such a distinction between "grade" and "class" based on order should not be compared to "kyu" vs. "dan", because the topic at hand - kyu - can have either "high quality" being associated either with large numbers or small numbers, so distinguishing "kyu" and "dan" this way, to me, seems arbitrary.

The discussion about the meaning of "段" is interesting, but it is a bit sidetracked from what I was originally trying to point out: the numerical value of "kyu" is arbitrary, because either numbers great in value or otherwise can be used to represent strong or high quality.

Again, the quote:

Minor point:

I think that grade for kyu is not right for go usage. In school, first grade comes before second grade, which comes before third grade, etc. Class, however, fits the usage of kyu. First class is higher than second class, which is higher than third class, etc. Grade fits the usage of dan.

to me, seems to disagree with this. That's because, to me, the quote above paints a picture of distinguishing between class and grade based on what is "higher". But when you are talking about "kyu", such talk of what is "higher" is arbitrary, because either "big numbers" or "small numbers" can represent something of high quality.

Is this not clear?

Again, the talk about "dan" and "step" and "gradus" is separate from the quote that I am referencing. The discussion about "dan" and "step" is all well and good.

John Fairbairn wrote:I took his reference to Japanese dan not as hotdogging about Japanese but as a gentle reminder to some to consider the Latin, i.e. focus on regular steps. Dan = step is a perfectly good argument in general. I just happen to think that it's undermined here by different UK/US usages and associations for "grade". I got the impression that Bill now acknowledges that (thank you, Bill - world peace saved for another week!).

Yes, John, my original remark was made in ignorance of British usage. Given the ambiguity, I now think that grade is not good for distinguishing kyu from dan.

cdybeijing wrote::scratch:

What is not clear?

Kirby wrote:because no such ordering distinction exists for "kyu", as "kyu" can be used both with low numbers being of high quality, or with high numbers being of high quality.

Kirby wrote:But when you are talking about "kyu", such talk of what is "higher" is arbitrary, because either "big numbers" or "small numbers" can represent something of high quality.

i won't pretend i really understand your point, but it seems to me that you don't like Bill's post suggesting that kyu ~ class because (n-1)-th class is better than n-th class and the same applies to kyus. and you seem to argue against it because kyus can be ordered either way in your opinion.

if i am correct about this, then this looks like a much ado about nothing to me. and i am also not sure if i agree with kyus being ordered either way, from high to low or from low to high. while i know nothing about etymology and original meaning of the word, from actual usage i saw (being a westerner with experience with go and limited knowledge of martial arts), i would say that 'lower numbered' kyu is always better than 'higher numbered' one and i would be more positive of that statement than of similar ones about classes or grades (not being a native English speaker). maybe there is another usage of 'kyu' i am not aware of and that works the other way, then you are right and i am wrong but i don't know about such.

you can still say that this distinction is arbitrary and that you could use 'kyu' with 'highest number' being the best, but why would you do that if everyone else use it the other way?

once again, if i am off with this post, i am sorry and everyone please feel free to ignore it, i am just trying to figure out what's going on

Laman wrote:..
i won't pretend i really understand your point, but it seems to me that you don't like Bill's post suggesting that kyu ~ class because (n-1)-th class is better than n-th class and the same applies to kyus. and you seem to argue against it because kyus can be ordered either way in your opinion.

Yes.

Laman wrote:... and i am also not sure if i agree with kyus being ordered either way, from high to low or from low to high. while i know nothing about etymology and original meaning of the word, from actual usage i saw (being a westerner with experience with go and limited knowledge of martial arts), i would say that 'lower numbered' kyu is always better than 'higher numbered' one and i would be more positive of that statement than of similar ones about classes or grades (not being a native English speaker). ...

"Kyu" can be used when "higher numbered" is better than "lower numbered". This is the entire point.

Laman wrote:you can still say that this distinction is arbitrary and that you could use 'kyu' with 'highest number' being the best, but why would you do that if everyone else use it the other way?
...

Not everyone uses it this way. In the game of go, this is how it is often used these days, but a "higher numbered kyu" can also be used to denote high quality.

There are a number of examples of this, and even one in this discussion (which, incidentally, was one that I had not known before this talk):

John Fairbairn wrote:Ultimately grades go back to ancient China, but there the civil service was split into 九品　or 九級 (with 9 as the highest), not dans.

So yes, in go these days, for example if you are on a go server, a lower kyu number means a "stronger" kyu. But this is not something inherent about the word, "kyu".

So yes, in go these days, for example if you are on a go server, a lower kyu number means a "stronger" kyu. But this is not something inherent about the word, "kyu".

I think you need to stand back a little and look at the forest, not the trees.

This is go we are talking about. We are further talking about a scale for players at the weaker end of the spectrum. The extreme beginners' end is very, very fuzzy and we don't really know where to stop adding numbers that are meaningful. That virtually dictates that kyu numbering starts with 1 below 1-dan and goes down into, not exactly infinity, but into fuzzinity. This approach may not be inherent in the word kyu, but it's certainly inherent in kyu as applied to this aspect of go.

John Fairbairn wrote:

So yes, in go these days, for example if you are on a go server, a lower kyu number means a "stronger" kyu. But this is not something inherent about the word, "kyu".

I think you need to stand back a little and look at the forest, not the trees.

This is go we are talking about. We are further talking about a scale for players at the weaker end of the spectrum. The extreme beginners' end is very, very fuzzy and we don't really know where to stop adding numbers that are meaningful. That virtually dictates that kyu numbering starts with 1 below 1-dan and goes down into, not exactly infinity, but into fuzzinity. This approach may not be inherent in the word kyu, but it's certainly inherent in kyu as applied to this aspect of go.

Sure. That may be rationale for why we typically use this type of numbering system in go. But the title of this thread is "What does 'kyu' mean?", and it seems misleading to try to force this approach into the definition of "kyu".

It might be like saying that all stones are either black or white. Maybe this is something that would fly if we were talking only about modern go (well, maybe not on April 1st on KGS), but it's not a true statement in itself. There are grey stones, for example.

When we try to define "kyu" in English, even when it's applied to go, I don't think we should try to enforce scenario-specific connotations on the word. I would prefer that we have a precise equivalent, and then enforce the scenario-specific connotations on the equivalent that we select.

And, in fact, this is what I (I guess mistakenly) assumed that you were disagreeing with Bill about when you first posted in this thread, mentioning the word, "arbitrary":

John Fairbairn wrote:...the implication that dan is somehow higher than kyu is also arbitrary, and so is the ordering.

such a "simple" word has so many different interpretations/meanings
which led to this heated discussioni

As you can see Chinese/Japanese/Korean all are deep languages, 1 word with gazillion meanings

Usually to identify the meanings of words in Chinese/Japanese/Korean, words are usually not alone by themselves but used with another word or two or more.
When they are just a single word by themselves, discussions of their meanings can be endless.
It's because there are so many idioms/expressions/phrases that uses the same word but all can have one or more meanings.

Even English in a way is similar to that. We can often guess the meaning of tough vocabulary words through the context of a sentence, this is the same exact case in Chinese/Japanese/Korean.

Kirby wrote:But it doesn't really matter to me if you intended to "teach" us some Japanese as much as it seems that you are trying to use this as a means to argue from a higher authority (eg. "What John and I know, but you guys don't, is that..."), when really, 段 is a basic kanji that most everyone that has any interest in the language knows.

Just to throw in my 2 cents...

I don't think Bill's intent was to argue from higher authority, I think what he was trying to do was clear up the fact that there were some subtle and nuanced details that were easily overlooked to those unfamiliar with the two very specific people who were debating.

For instance --

John Fairbairn wrote: We are actually just following Japanese practice...

...carries a different feel when you consider...

Bill Spight wrote:...Now, one thing that both John and I knew, but did not say, was that one meaning of dan, in Japanese, is step...Another thing that both of us knew, but did not say, was that early translators of go literature translated dan as grade...

..likewise...

John Fairbairn wrote: ...I suspect that people here who know Latin might want to think of grade specifically as a step...

...makes more sense when you consider...

Bill Spight wrote:...That accords with grade, which is derived from the Latin gradus, and retains the meaning of stage in a progression...

I personally found Bill's clarifications quite useful, and they certainly paint the discussion between the two of them in a different light. They both knew and agreed on the linguistic/historical backgrounds of the Japanese/Latin words, they were just trying to clarify cultural differences in how the English equivalents were perceived. Personally I feel I'd be more inclined to think that a "second grade" is higher than a "first grade" and a "second class" is lower than a "first class" but as has been established that could be because I'm American...Maybe in the end it would be easier if we compromise and go with the Aussie way of labeling and just call them all "Bruce" (=

Mef wrote:

Kirby wrote:But it doesn't really matter to me if you intended to "teach" us some Japanese as much as it seems that you are trying to use this as a means to argue from a higher authority (eg. "What John and I know, but you guys don't, is that..."), when really, 段 is a basic kanji that most everyone that has any interest in the language knows.

Just to throw in my 2 cents...

I don't think Bill's intent was to argue from higher authority, I think what he was trying to do was clear up the fact that there were some subtle and nuanced details that were easily overlooked to those unfamiliar with the two very specific people who were debating.

For instance --

John Fairbairn wrote: We are actually just following Japanese practice...

...carries a different feel when you consider...

Bill Spight wrote:...Now, one thing that both John and I knew, but did not say, was that one meaning of dan, in Japanese, is step...Another thing that both of us knew, but did not say, was that early translators of go literature translated dan as grade...

My interpretation of:

John Fairbairn wrote: We are actually just following Japanese practice...

was, again, that the ordering methodology that we use for numbering the "kyu" system is just based on Japanese practice for naming ranks in go.

The discussion about "dan" being "step", etc. appeared to come in response to my comment on the numerical ordering of kyu ranks. Reading the post, again, I still feel that my interpretation of what had been said is rational. Of course, it's possible that John meant something different in what he wrote.

When Bill started explaining what "dan" meant to me, I felt a little bit insulted. This could have gotten me to be a little bit off-track in the discussion, when the real thing that I wanted to point out, was just that the ordering was arbitrary - even though we happen to use this ordering/rank system in modern go.

I (would like to learn enough to be able to) consider myself an armchair linguist, and I'm always interested in the etymology of words, so I didn't feel at all offended by the discussion of gradus and ji.

I used to take Aikido, so I'm already familiar with the kyu/dan ranking system. I don't personally see anything wrong with extending the same ranks used in Japanese martial arts into Go (especially as it's been done since near a century ago, at least) - although I'd be interested to know if Chinese martial arts also use a ji/duan distinction, and I wonder the same about Korean martial arts.