Mabiki

[aesthete8]

Was this done by drowing as the Chinese did?:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wdMgLJXMhx8C&pg=PA520&dq=japan+a+short+cultural+history+mabiki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_rxJT5-LN-mqiQKB6Y3bDQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[JimBreen]

On Feb 26, 4:05 pm, aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was this done by drowing as the Chinese did?:
>

> http://books.google.com/books?id=wdMgLJXMhx8C&pg=PA520&dq=japan+a+sho...

Did? It still happens.

The refs don't mention a particular method of 間引き. My
guess is it was done many ways.

Jim

[Tad Perry]

"JimBreen" <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be87ee6d-e2af-4a39...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

***

When I run across it, it is almost always "sub-sampling," which is often
incorrectly translated as "culling". It *can* be "culling," but in specific
cases where "sub-sampling" is called for, translators often get it wrong.
"Sub-sampling" should probably be added as a gloss to the EDICT entry for
間引き.

I never realized that this familiar word had such a horrible extended
meaning.

tvp

[Ben Bullock]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 01:02:00 -0800, Tad Perry wrote:

> "JimBreen" <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:be87ee6d-e2af-4a39-a470-
a42f29...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 26, 4:05 pm, aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Was this done by drowing as the Chinese did?:

According to W. Somerset Maugham's book "On a Chinese Screen" there was a
tower down which unwanted children were dropped. Incidentally W. Somerset
Maugham also wrote a book based on his experiences as a doctor in which
he described people in London smothering unwanted babies.

> When I run across it, it is almost always "sub-sampling," which is often
> incorrectly translated as "culling". It *can* be "culling," but in
> specific cases where "sub-sampling" is called for, translators often get
> it wrong. "Sub-sampling" should probably be added as a gloss to the
> EDICT entry for 間引き.

In the case of agriculture or horticulture, it would usually be covered
by the English word "thinning".

> I never realized that this familiar word had such a horrible extended
> meaning.

I'd heard that infanticide was practised in Japan in the feudal period
but did not know of this word. How lucky we are in this modern era!

--
sci.lang.japan FAQ/language tools: http://www.sljfaq.org/afaq/

[aesthete8]

On Feb 26, 3:24 am, Ben Bullock <benkasminbull...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 01:02:00 -0800, Tad Perry wrote:

> > "JimBreen" <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:be87ee6d-e2af-4a39-a470-
>
> a42f29127...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

>
> > On Feb 26, 4:05 pm, aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Was this done by drowing as the Chinese did?:
>
> According to W. Somerset Maugham's book "On a Chinese Screen" there was a
> tower down which unwanted children were dropped.

According to the book DROWNING GIRLS IN CHINA...:

- The Qing dynasty...saw a new development in the treatment of
abandoned children. Beginning in 1655-1656, local elites (degree-
holding gentry and merchants) took the initiative in establishing
foundling hospitals... Whereas Song orphanages had been run by the
central government, Qing orphanages were private institutions run by
local elites...The first Qing edict condemning infanticide [was] in
1659.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ji-rQahK0rAC&pg=PA129&dq=china+orphanages&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nbJKT_TaGYmjiQKK25DaDQ&ved=0CHsQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=orphanages&f=false

[JimBreen]

On Feb 26, 8:02 pm, "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "JimBreen" <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:be87ee6d-e2af-4a39...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 4:05 pm, aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Was this done by drowing as the Chinese did?:
>>
>> >http://books.google.com/books?id=wdMgLJXMhx8C&pg=PA520&dq=japan+a+sho...

>> The refs don't mention a particular method of 間引き. My
>> guess is it was done many ways.

> When I run across it, it is almost always "sub-sampling," which is often
> incorrectly translated as "culling". It *can* be "culling," but in specific
> cases where "sub-sampling" is called for, translators often get it wrong.

Well, they are in good company, because at least one dictionary (the
Kenkyusha 新和英中辞典 glosses it as culling too:

"thinning (out) 《of plants》; cropping 《of excess deer》;
culling 《of young seals》; a 《seal》 cull"

> "Sub-sampling" should probably be added as a gloss to the EDICT entry for
> 間引き.

Can do. I note that none of my references, neither 国語字典 nor bilingual,
gloss it as "sub-sampling". Can you point me to some text using it
that way?

Cheers

Jim

[Stuart McGraw]

On 02/26/2012 06:24 AM, Ben Bullock wrote:
>[...]

> Incidentally W. Somerset
> Maugham also wrote a book based on his experiences as a doctor in which
> he described people in London smothering unwanted babies.

>[...]

> I'd heard that infanticide was practised in Japan in the feudal period
> but did not know of this word. How lucky we are in this modern era!

Even in the early 20th century according to one of the vignettes
in "Memories of Silk and Straw" (Jun'inchi Saga). The book is a
collection of short tales collected by a rural doctor from his
elderly patients, about their lives just after the turn of the
(other) century. One story describes the illegal but sometimes
practiced method of putting a wet paper over an infant's mouth.
In the case described, the baby survived to joke about it as an
adult with her mother later. I imagine it was a practice known
to most cultures.

The book was wonderful. There are all sort of histories of
the powerful and wealthy, but stories of the lives of ordinary
people in historical times are pretty rare.

http://www.amazon.com/Memories-Silk-Straw-Self-Portrait-Small-Town/dp/0870119885/

[Tad Perry]

"JimBreen" <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:67e00e31-80c6-4c1f...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

****

Usually, it has this meaning in technical documents where there are video
frames being displayed to make up a motion video image, but not all the
frames are being used. Or in audio technology where a sound is sampled at
one rate, but this is thinned out ("culled") through sub-sampling, and some
samples (say, every other) are thrown away.

If you Google the following together you get plenty of relevant hits.

sub-sampling 間引き

Often, 間引き is viewed as one form of sub-sampling, but just calling it
"sub-sampling" when you see it in this technical context is almost always
correct.

Knowing word glosses that are not found in any known dictionary has buttered
my bread for over two decades. Slowly but surely, more and more sources
include these glosses. (Example, in 1992, I encountered the word ブレ being
used for "blur" in some CG programming manual. The word couldn't be found
anywhere. Now, it's easy to find and even included in EDICT.)

I'm not really trying to blow my own horn, but I was in the unique position
of being a native English speaker who learned computer and electronic
technology entirely in a Japanese immersed environment at a critical time in
human history right at the advent of the Internet. (Circa. 1988 to 1992)
This made it possible to know for certain what the Japanese meant and merely
required me to ask an English expert what we say in English if I didn't
already know. This is much easier than knowing the English and searching for
needles in a Japanese haystack or seeing a Japanese word and not knowing for
certain what it is in either language. (Then you have two haystacks you have
to search through.)

tvp

[Bart Mathias]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:24:21 +0000 (UTC)
Ben Bullock <benkasmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...]

> > When I run across it, it is almost always "sub-sampling," which is often
> > incorrectly translated as "culling". It *can* be "culling," but in
> > specific cases where "sub-sampling" is called for, translators often get
> > it wrong. "Sub-sampling" should probably be added as a gloss to the
> > EDICT entry for 間引き.

Aha! My best guess so far had been that "drowing" was something done with ink
on paper. Thanks for the clarification!
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[muchan]

On Feb 27, 2:07 am, "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Knowing word glosses that are not found in any known dictionary has buttered
> my bread for over two decades. Slowly but surely, more and more sources
> include these glosses. (Example, in 1992, I encountered the word ブレ being
> used for "blur" in some CG programming manual. The word couldn't be found
> anywhere. Now, it's easy to find and even included in EDICT.)
>

Probably you meant ボケ?
ボケ is general term for blur, esp. caused by out-of-focusness.
ブレ is blur caused by moving of camera.

muchan

[aesthete8]

On Feb 25, 7:05 pm, aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was this done by drowing as the Chinese did?:
>

> http://books.google.com/books?id=wdMgLJXMhx8C&pg=PA520&dq=japan+a+sho...

According to the following, the most common method of mabiki in Japan
was strangulation:

http://books.google.com/books?id=REDpAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA20&dq=mabiki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O0BLT-SPBLTYiQLZnozbDQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=mabiki&f=false

[Tad Perry]

"muchan" <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a9fd861-afef-4ccc...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

***

No, I did not mean ボケ.

ブレ is the technical term for "blur" as used in computer graphics. This is a
specific attribute of a CG image. Also, how can I be wrong about it? It was
the word in front of me, not the word I came up with!

(Good thing *you* weren't the E-J translator on that subject! I get it
right. Others learn from the master! :-)

tvp

[muchan]

I'm talking about how Japense word ブレ and ボケ means.
I don't know how these words are used in other languages.
But if the CG book you mentioned was written by Japanse native,
I bet the word ブレ was used in the sense of "motion blur",
not "out-of-focus blur".

muchan

[JimBreen]

On Feb 27, 12:07 pm, "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "JimBreen" <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > > "Sub-sampling" should probably be added as a gloss to the EDICT entry for
>> > 間引き.
>>
>> Can do. I note that none of my references, neither 国語字典 nor bilingual,
>> gloss it as "sub-sampling". Can you point me to some text using it
>> that way?

> Usually, it has this meaning in technical documents where there are video
> frames being displayed to make up a motion video image, but not all the
> frames are being used. Or in audio technology where a sound is sampled at
> one rate, but this is thinned out ("culled") through sub-sampling, and some
> samples (say, every other) are thrown away.

I suspected that. So it's an extension to the "thin, cull" sense
rather than an
additional sense. I'll add it there.

> Knowing word glosses that are not found in any known dictionary has buttered
> my bread for over two decades. Slowly but surely, more and more sources
> include these glosses. (Example, in 1992, I encountered the word ブレ being
> used for "blur" in some CG programming manual. The word couldn't be found
> anywhere. Now, it's easy to find and even included in EDICT.)

It's been in JMdict/EDICT since at least early 2000 (my records don't
go
back further than that.)

It's in most JEs now. Seems to be from ぶれる, which
広辞苑 says is "「振れる」の転か".

Jim

[JimBreen]

On Feb 28, 8:42 am, muchan <mucha...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm talking about how Japense word ブレ and ボケ means.
> I don't know how these words are used in other languages.
> But if the CG book you mentioned was written by Japanse native,
> I bet the word ブレ was used in the sense of "motion blur",
> not "out-of-focus blur".

Thanks for raising this. I realise I didn't have an entry for
that meaning of ボケ/ぼけ.

Is it another sense of 呆け/惚け, or is it a quite
different word?

Jim

[ueshiba]

On 2月28日, 午前6:42, muchan <mucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:04:24 -0800
>
>
>
>
>

> "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "muchan" <mucha...@gmail.com> wrote in message

ピン・ボケ（ピント・ボケ）とは何か、手ブレ補正とはどういう機能かを考えれば、
日本語での意味は明らか　と思いますのにね。
。
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　上柴　公二

[ueshiba]

On 2月28日, 午前7:26, JimBreen <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it another sense of 呆け/惚け, or is it a quite
> different word?

「ぼける」「ほける」「ほうける」さらには、「ぼかす」という言葉が、
ＣＧはおろか、カメラなどというもの自体存在しない時代から
ありますから（ただし、camera obscura は別の話し？）、
quite different とは言い難いように思えます。

なお、ブレについては、「振れ（る）」そのものが濁音化したというより、
ブレという言葉の意味からしても、「震え（る）ー＞ブレ」（「震え」を
表す擬声語はブルブルです）と考えた方がいいかもしれません。
あるいは、blur という言葉が基になっている（もちろん、その際、振れ、
震え、ブルブルなどという日本語が媒介となって　ですが）ようにも
思えます。
ちなみに、この言葉は比較的新しいものかもしれません。日本国語大辞典
にも古い用例を挙げていませんし、たまたま目にした『アマチュア写真術』
（昭和２３年、１９４８年発行）にも、ブレを防止する機能を持つ三脚（台）
やレリーズについては書かれていますのに、どうも「ブレ」という言葉自体は
見えないようです。
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　上柴　公二

[Tad Perry]

"muchan" <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:20120227224227.402e5017@fintu...

***

Absolutely. That is the attribute in question. I already understood the
difference between ボケ and ブレ. You just didn't trust that fact when you read
my post. FYI, the term "blur" in English CG terminology normally refers only
to "motion blur." The term "defocus" (not "blur") would normally be used for
the concept of ボケ.

tvp

[Tad Perry]

"ueshiba" <ues...@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:e61ddb58-162a-443e...@i6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

This was exactly my original point: it is an example of word not commonly
found in dictionaries in the past, but that can now be found in just about
any dictionary.

tvp

[Tad Perry]

"ueshiba" <ues...@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote in message

news:4b07e60a-ca79-4eb4...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

***

Interesting point of note: 手ブレ補正 is a technology independently named in
Japan and the USA.

The correct English term (uninfluenced by how Japanese language looks at it)
is "image stabilization."

But Japanese camera manufacturers like Canon and Sony insist on using
English terminology that is based on translating 手ブレ補正 into English.

Not only that, the various companies involved do NOT agree as to the exact
English form this translation should take. In fact, a big company like Sony
could easily translate it many different ways in different documents.
(Although they will be consistent within a given department and within a
given document.)

Japanese-influenced English terms include:

* Vibration reduction
* Image shake reduction
* Hand-shake reduction
* Vibration correction
* Etc.

This is not an unusual situation. Often one culture looks at something from
one angle, the other culture looks at the same thing from a different angle,
and then when it comes time to translate, Culture A attempts to impose their
cultural viewpoint on the language of Culture B.

Take 半角・全角, for example.

From a Japanese perspective, our characters look to be lacking in size. They
are only "half" the size they should be. I constantly run into the
completely Japano-centric terms "half-space" and "full-space."

Why would an English speaker view our own characters as "half" of normal
size? We see our characters as perfectly normal in size and would never
think to refer to them in this manner. Usually, the terms "single-byte" and
"double-byte" can handle this situation, but it is complicated by Japanese
encoding schemes, where some Japanese characters are not actually
"single-byte" even though it's such a handy term.

The point is that good translators do not just map the source language
word-for-word into the target language. Instead, they seek to match the
utterances used in the same situations to express the same attitudes and
sentiments.

For anyone that's been paying attention, this has been a constant theme of
mine during my participation in this newsgroup.

tvp

[JimBreen]

On Feb 28, 6:50 pm, ueshiba <uesh...@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote:
> On 2月28日, 午前7:26, JimBreen <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is it another sense of 呆け/惚け, or is it a quite
> > different word?
>
> 「ぼける」「ほける」「ほうける」さらには、「ぼかす」という言葉が、
> ＣＧはおろか、カメラなどというもの自体存在しない時代から
> ありますから（ただし、camera obscura は別の話し？）、
> quite different とは言い難いように思えます。

難い indeed. I think I'll make this ボケ/ぼけ a separate
entry rather than attempting to work it into 呆け/惚け.
As you point out, it probably came from 暈す.

Jim

[Tad Perry]

"JimBreen" <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:3a3bc3b5-13f5-441d...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

And the best J-E/E-J dictionary out there slowly inches forward.

I think I should clarify something I said earlier in this thread: ブレ
meaning "motion blur" in a technical CG context is what is hard to find
dictionaries.

As a 転換 of 振れる, I suppose many Japanese dictionaries consider the
katakana ブレ as being "obvious" and just don't include it. You'd have to
know its probable derivation to figure it out, and I didn't.

When I ran across it, I searched everywhere and couldn't even find ブレ (as
a katakana entry with the gloss "blur") anywhere. (If the entry for ブレ
really dates back that far, it would have been useful, but still would not
have completely resolved the issue.) I had to call a CG programming expert I
knew and described exactly what the term meant (obvious from context) and
how it was being used and got my answer.

Anyway, knowing little bits of information like this really does pay off.

Things like knowing that 自IPアドレス　is NOT "self-IP address" but "the
system IP address." (You can also get away with "local IP address" in most
cases. Anyway, it's the local system's own IP address, not the IP address of
a remote system on the network.)

tvp

[muchan]

On Feb 28, 11:41 pm, JimBreen <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 難い indeed. I think I'll make this ボケ/ぼけ a separate
> entry rather than attempting to work it into 呆け/惚け.
> As you point out, it probably came from 暈す.
>
> Jim

The pair of ぼける and ぼかす are just 自動詞/他動詞 pair, aren't they?
So, if one does it intentionary, it would be ぼかし, and if unintentional
result
it's ぼけ, or, if not thinking of action of, or existense of the one who
intentionally
made it (like lookng at photo without judging the photographer)
objectively,
it's ぼけ.

ぼけ as mental ilness, or effect of aging, is also the common meaning
of
"out-of-focusness", in this case, the focus of the mind. More milder
or
temporary form, when our mind is not completely focused after waking
up,
or when getting sleepy, it's 寝ぼけ. Jet-lag is called 時差ぼけ.
In manzai, the one who says the nonsense (out-of-focus reply to the
more
focused partner, つっこみ）is also ぼけ.

I consider all of them, etymologically the same word.

muchan

PS. These days I confused and have read the post by Jim Beard,
signing "jim b", thinking you wrote them. 8)
Two "Jim B." in such a small group of people in this group...

[Jim Beard]

Muchan,

You do not realize how much I treasure the idea that you might
mistake my keyboard pounding for something by Jim Breen. Thank
you for the compliment! (Even if undeserved.)

I had thought my .signature appearing at the end of the post and
the tenor of my verbosity would be adequate to differentiate. If
anyone thinks otherwise, please reply and tell me, and I can
shift to,

Cheers!

jim beard

--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.

[Tad Perry]

"muchan" <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7a55fc5d-22e2-4ee0...@ge5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 28, 11:41 pm, JimBreen <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 難い indeed. I think I'll make this ボケ/ぼけ a separate
>> entry rather than attempting to work it into 呆け/惚け.
>> As you point out, it probably came from 暈す.
>>
>> Jim
>
> The pair of ぼける and ぼかす are just 自動詞/他動詞 pair, aren't they?
> So, if one does it intentionary, it would be ぼかし, and if unintentional
> result
> it's ぼけ, or, if not thinking of action of, or existense of the one who
> intentionally
> made it (like lookng at photo without judging the photographer)
> objectively,
> it's ぼけ.
>
> ぼけ as mental ilness, or effect of aging, is also the common meaning
> of
> "out-of-focusness", in this case, the focus of the mind. More milder
> or
> temporary form, when our mind is not completely focused after waking
> up,
> or when getting sleepy, it's 寝ぼけ. Jet-lag is called 時差ぼけ.
> In manzai, the one who says the nonsense (out-of-focus reply to the
> more
> focused partner, つっこみ）is also ぼけ.
>
> I consider all of them, etymologically the same word.

Muchan, I have a question regarding this.

In Japanese, there are a couple handful of verbs (like よごす/けがす） where
the same kanji is used, but the reading differs depending if the word is
being used literally (dirty with real dirt) or figuratively (soiled or
stained, like one's spirit or soul). I've also seen words, where the reading
is the same, but the kanji changes depending on if the term is being used
literally or figuratively. (Unfortunately, an example does not spring to
mind.)

In the case of ぼけ to mean "out of focus," are different kanji commonly
preferred when using the term literally ("out-of-focus" photograph) versus
figuratively ("out-of-focus" mind)?

tvp

[muchan]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:53:44 -0800
"Tad Perry" <tadp...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >
> > I consider all of them, etymologically the same word.
>
> Muchan, I have a question regarding this.
>
> In Japanese, there are a couple handful of verbs (like よごす/
> けがす） where the same kanji is used, but the reading differs
> depending if the word is being used literally (dirty with real dirt)
> or figuratively (soiled or stained, like one's spirit or soul). I've
> also seen words, where the reading is the same, but the kanji changes
> depending on if the term is being used literally or figuratively.
> (Unfortunately, an example does not spring to mind.)

Japanese language did not have characters until certain century.
So, as for Japanese word(s), if they (it) sound(s) the same and
share(s) the same origin and broader level of meaning, then they
are the same word(s).

Kanji was imported from foreign culture/civilisation, and Chinese
people may not consider the two meanings of this word as the same
concept, then they (Chinese uses) separate characters.

In the process of Japanses people to learn to use (Chinese) characters,
they found that chinese people use separate characters for the same
Japanese (phonetical) words, then they further learn the concepts
in Chinese so that the misusage would be confusing to more fruent
Chinese readers.

Oops. Now I see your example was contraly, when Chinese uses the same
kanji and Japanese distinguishes the two. But the process is the same.

In the case of yogosu/kegasu, kegasu is used in the sense that when
the something sacred becomes dirty. (But I think Chinese may use
涜 for this purpose like 冒涜? Japanese read this as kegasu, but not
yogosu...)

>
> In the case of ぼけ to mean "out of focus," are different kanji
> commonly preferred when using the term literally ("out-of-focus"
> photograph) versus figuratively ("out-of-focus" mind)?
>
> tvp
>

Now a days both are often written with katakana. Probably to make the
word stand out from the context. (you can't say where is word bounary
when all is written in hiragana in a glance). I feel that such katakana
usage of Japanese origin words are increasing these days. (-- or already
significantly increased in the recent past.
Because of media, or internet, I don't know...)

muchan

[aesthete8]

On Feb 27, 11:00 pm, "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "ueshiba" <uesh...@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote in message

But is everything translatable?

[Tad Perry]

"aesthete8" <art...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8dba506-a041-49b6...@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

***

It depends. If we consider that translation can and does include explanatory
notes where necessary, then the answer is "yes."

A better question may be: "*Should* everything be translated?"

There are many times where something that is entirely Japanese in nature and
native to the culture, such as "sushi", should just be used in English
without attempts to translate it. These Japanese words then become English
words in a sense, and in comes the footnote to explain what it means if the
reader may not be familiar with it.

tvp

[Jim Beard]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:44:35 -0800, aesthete8 wrote:

> On Feb 27, 11:00 pm, "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "ueshiba" <uesh...@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4b07e60a-

ca79-4eb4-902...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

>> On 2月28日, 午前6:42, muchan <mucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:04:24 -0800
>>
>> > "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > "muchan" <mucha...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> > >news:2a9fd861-afef-4ccc-adab-
a587c8...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

In the most general sense, not everything is translatable even within a
single language.

At best, human language provides an approximation of meaning. Words and
phrases will never mean exactly the same thing to two different people,
simply because their perspectives and past experience with them differ,
and meaning shifts however slightly as a result. And that within a
single language. The greater the difference in values, perspectives, and
history of two individuals, the greater the difference is likely to be in
how they will interpret the same words and phrases.

Your non-human languages, mathematics, and some forms of logic, arguably
allow communication between different people to be precise, but these
languages always seem to boil down to a single language with different
presentations. A, B is a different presentation from Kou, Otsu, but the
meaning within an artificial language such as mathematics may be exactly
the same. This allows exact translation.

So, what are your critera to judge if an attempted translation has been
successful? Phrased differently, what criteria do we use to judge
adequacy of translation? And to what extent must those criteria be
satisfied before we consider the derivative work "a translation"?

Anything and everything can be translated, if standards for translation
are lax enough, and virtually nothing of significance can be translated
if the standards are set high enough.

Cheers!

jim b.

[gggg...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 25, 2012 at 7:05:08 PM UTC-10, aesthete8 wrote:
> Was this done by drowing as the Chinese did?:
>

> http://books.google.com/books?id=wdMgLJXMhx8C&pg=PA520&dq=japan+a+short+cultural+history+mabiki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_rxJT5-LN-mqiQKB6Y3bDQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Review of recent book MABIKI...:

https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_interdisciplinary_history/v044/44.4.roberts.html

[gggg...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 25, 2012 at 11:02:00 PM UTC-10, Tad Perry wrote:
> "JimBreen" <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:be87ee6d-e2af-4a39...@w19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 26, 4:05 pm, aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Was this done by drowing as the Chinese did?:
> >

> > http://books.google.com/books?id=wdMgLJXMhx8C&pg=PA520&dq=japan+a+sho...
>
> Did? It still happens.

>
> The refs don't mention a particular method of 間引き. My
> guess is it was done many ways.
>

> ***

>
> When I run across it, it is almost always "sub-sampling," which is often
> incorrectly translated as "culling". It *can* be "culling," but in specific
> cases where "sub-sampling" is called for, translators often get it wrong.

> "Sub-sampling" should probably be added as a gloss to the EDICT entry for
> 間引き.
>

> I never realized that this familiar word had such a horrible extended
> meaning.
>
> tvp

(After clicking on link below, see KAESU, MODOSU):

https://books.google.com/books?id=qisCboJy36kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=dog+shogun&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq_43p847QAhWJ0FQKHX1EDFQQuwUIIDAA#v=onepage&q=kaesu&f=false

[gggg...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 25, 2012 at 9:05:08 PM UTC-8, aesthete8 wrote:
> Was this done by drowing as the Chinese did?:
>

> http://books.google.com/books?id=wdMgLJXMhx8C&pg=PA520&dq=japan+a+short+cultural+history+mabiki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_rxJT5-LN-mqiQKB6Y3bDQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Mabiki... (2013 book):

https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520272439/mabiki

[gggg gggg]

On Saturday, February 25, 2012 at 9:05:08 PM UTC-8, aesthete8 wrote:
> Was this done by drowing as the Chinese did?:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=wdMgLJXMhx8C&pg=PA520&dq=japan+a+short+cultural+history+mabiki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_rxJT5-LN-mqiQKB6Y3bDQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

(Youtube upload):

"Mabiki: The Japanese Practice of Killing Your Own Baby"

[gggg gggg]

On Saturday, February 25, 2012 at 9:05:08 PM UTC-8, aesthete8 wrote:
> Was this done by drowing as the Chinese did?:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=wdMgLJXMhx8C&pg=PA520&dq=japan+a+short+cultural+history+mabiki&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_rxJT5-LN-mqiQKB6Y3bDQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

According to the Chatbot BARD:


The Japanese word 間引き (mabiki) is a euphemism for infanticide. It literally means "thinning out" or "weeding out." Mabiki was a common practice in Japan during the Edo period (1603-1868) when infant mortality was high and resources were scarce. Parents would often kill their newborn babies if they could not afford to raise them. Mabiki was also practiced by prostitutes and other women who lived in poverty.

Mabiki is a controversial topic in Japan. Some people believe that it is a form of murder, while others believe that it was a necessary evil in the past. The practice of mabiki is illegal in Japan today.