Forum for Recommended First Books

Amateur / Professional [#2906]

Back to forum     Back to page

New reply

 
reply
RobertJasiek: Amateur / Professional (2013-07-08 16:16) [#9706]

The page informs about books. It need not inform which author is amateur or professional. Such an information is useless with respect to describing the books' qualities or contents. Instead, the distinction between amateur or professional on this page misleads the reader, because it creates the false impression of exactly two types of authors: amateurs versus professionals. However, there are authors that are

  • amateur authors, not publishers, amateur players
  • professional authors, not publishers, amateur players
  • professional authors, professional publishers, amateur players
  • professional authors, not publishers, professional players by status
  • professional authors, not publishers, professional players by status and in practice
  • etc.

E.g., I am a "professional author, professional publisher, amateur player (and professional go teacher)". Calling me "amateur" is very misleading in the context of a page about books. With respect to writing and publishing books, I am a professional.

Can't we simply remove all reference to "amateur" / "professional" from this page? Thereby, misleading to false information can be avoided.

The page is not about enforcing a particular definition of distinction between amateur and professional. However, using "amateur" for me tries to enforce the particular definition that financial professionalism would not be professionalism, while status professionalism would be professionalism.

X
HermanHiddema: Re: Amateur / Professional (2013-07-08 17:25) [#9707]

As I've said before: Terms have meaning. You cannot just choose a different meaning.

Professional author is a term with an established meaning. It refers to someone who gets paid, by a third party, for their writing work. In the case of authors, this is generally the publisher, but there are also those authors who get paid to write e.g. documentation, manuals or legal documents, either free-lance or employed. The latter group are often hired for their skills at the language involved, rather than their expertise in the subject.

Amateur authors are those who self-publish, or who write without compensation (e.g. writing articles for Sensei's Library is amateur writing).

Note that the term "professional author" does not inherently say anything about the quality of the writing work involved, though generally it is of course hard to get paid for bad work in any context. At most, one could say that a professional writer is probably "competent".

So, if you have a paid contract with a third party publisher, you can call yourself a "professional author". If you do not, it is misleading to do so. Note, again, that the term then would not provide any real guarantee as to the quality of your work, but it would be used correctly.

Regardless of the above, all references on this page are references to playing strength. Playing strength is no guarantee of writing skill, but does provide some guarantees as to the skill of the author w.r.t. the game and the likelihood as to their having insight into the subject that a weaker player would not have.

It is information people like to know, and I don't see a good reason to hide such information on this page. If you wish to convince the reader that your work is as good or better as that of others (professional or otherwise), you will have to do so on the merit of your work.

I do think there is also a world of difference between different amateur levels. Certainly your 5d level provides some guarantees w.r.t. the material that e.g. a 10k level would not. Such a player is unlikely, IMO, to have discovered all the principles involved, nor are they likely to have an in depth understanding. Perhaps "amateur 5 dan" rather than just "amateur" is a good idea.

RobertJasiek: Re: Amateur / Professional (2013-07-08 18:12) [#9708]

Now I see that you have an even more fundamentally different understanding of "professional writer" than I thought. Maybe it is simply different between the Netherlands and Germany? In my understanding, a self-publishing author is either a) an amateur if he does not publish for the sake of generating income (for living) or b) a professional if he publishes for the sake of generating income. This distinction exists independently of the existence of a treaty. Since my publication business does not use a jurisdicational person for the publishing company, but since it runs simply on my name and entity as a natural person, I - the author - cannot and may not sign a treaty with me - the publisher. Nevertheless, German state officials consider my activities with respect to generating income to be professional activities (and of course they collect income and other taxes or fees according to the law).

If you are so fond of informing readers of this page of author skills, they you can as well mention go theory research, number of go books published or years of commercial go teaching experience. The aspects are as informative as a player status.

Concerning discussing of the merits of the books' contents, this (parent) page is not meant to be a discussion page, but simply a short list of books.

You say: "Certainly your 5d level provides some guarantees w.r.t. the material that e.g. a 10k level would not. Such a player is unlikely, IMO, to have discovered all the principles involved, nor are they likely to have an in depth understanding. Perhaps "amateur 5 dan" rather than just "amateur" is a good idea."

If "such a player" refers to 10 kyu, then you are probably right. (Elwyn Berlekamp, 10 kyu, and his book cannot be compared well WRT to player-applicable principles.) If "such a player" refers to amateur 5 dan level in general, you are probably right, because most amateur 5 dans have not worked out principles in a similar manner. If "such a player" refers to me and my amateur 5 dan level, you are of course wrong. More specifically: my books contain different kinds of principles: a) such available verbally somewhere in the world's go population and being common sense (at least among stronger players), b) such available verbally somewhere in the world's go population and requiring my clear thinking about what I have learnt from hearsay, kibitzing or reading literature, c) such discovered by my own research. Example for (a): "Notice weaknesses." Example for (b): "Do not let your opponent's development be better than yours." Example for (c): "If a group with one indirect connection is cut, the group's stronger part is still alive and the weaker part's life is defended."

Maybe you consider it unlikely that I have discovered all Type (c) principles. This my ability is explained by 1) regular thinking about creating new principles (from low level go theory knowledge) since 1993 (for becoming stronger as a dan, as a long-term preparation for writing go books and as a potential preparation for an expert computer go program, which I have not started though), 2) go theory research experience since 1996 and 3) specific go theory research for up to ca. 2 months (in addition to the writing / editing effort) per book. The usual amateur 5 dan has done neither (1), (2) nor (3) and so also does not write books. However, I am not the usual amateur 5 dan, but somebody with great invested effort in these three points.

HermanHiddema: Re: Amateur / Professional (2013-07-08 19:00) [#9709]

I am using the term "professional writer" as it is used in English (according to my understanding). I do not think either German or Dutch understanding of the related term in that language is relevant to this page, as it is in English.

go theory research, number of go books published or years of commercial go teaching experience

Yes, these aspects are, like playing strength, interesting metrics but not in themselves guarantees that the author writes good books, though they may make it more likely that an author produces good work.

"such a player" referred to the 10 kyu.

As to the quality or completeness of the content of your work, I have no opinion, and my edit was not related to it.

My edit simply removed what I considered an incorrect use of the term "professional author". Furthermore, if we use your interpretation of "writing to generate some income", then all authors on the page are professional authors, and it becomes rather redundant to add that to all their descriptions.

RobertJasiek: Re: Amateur / Professional (2013-07-08 20:04) [#9710]

Your last point: yes. Also that's why I prefer to remove these attributes.

HermanHiddema: Re: Amateur / Professional (2013-07-08 22:04) [#9713]

The page currently states a fact considered relevant by many players. It is up to them to use that information as they see fit. I see no reason to hide it.

RobertJasiek: Re: Amateur / Professional (2013-07-08 22:59) [#9717]

Do you think that the page's readers cannot follow the links to the pages about the authors? I think they can and, if interested in learning facts about an author, will.

Slarty: ((no subject)) (2013-07-08 21:41) [#9711]

No content

Slarty: Re: Amateur / Professional (2013-07-08 20:35) [#9712]

TL;DR

There are professional and amateur Go players, as there are in sports.

Nobody devotes their life to writing Go books for beginners, and if they did, their reputation as a virtuoso author should precede them.

RobertJasiek: Re: Amateur / Professional (2013-07-08 22:54) [#9716]

Joke? Who spoke of profesional writers of only beginner go books...?

reply
tapir: ((no subject)) (2013-07-08 22:43) [#9714]

Afair we do not distinguish professional / amateur author elsewhere in SL when listing books and the information about the author is readily available at the linked page of the author (it is hypertext). I usually don't like the immodesty of Robert Jasiek when advertising his books, but here he is kind of right. Book by professional X vs. book by amateur Y just looks like a clumsy attempt to discourage people to take the book written by the amateurs. It would be more honest if people would state which books they want on a recommended first books list.

The whole discussion about the meaning of "professional writer" is a sideshow.

X
172.0.9.139: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-09 05:11) [#9719]

The important point is that some of these books are written by/in collaboration with actual professional Go players; some of them are written by amateurs, but vouched for by the collective experience of generations of Western Go players; and one is very recent and recommended primarily by the author himself. The accurate warning would be "Warning: the author added this book to the page himself. 'First Fundamentals' is not a standard recommendation." To merely note that RJ is an amateur, instead of removing the book from the page or putting it in a separate self-promotion section, seems to me to be a courtesy extended to RJ out of respect for his contributions to the Go community. 172

RobertJasiek: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-09 07:02) [#9720]

It is right that I added First Fundamentals to the page. Regardless of opinion on this book, the addition has then motivated us to significantly improve the page by a) adding more books, b) adding still missing cover art images, c) creating the very helpful distinction between first books (Introductory Books) and second books (Follow-up books), of which in practice many choose one as their first book, and d) improving details and perceived neutral point of view in the text descriptions (well, except that some books have much longer descriptions than others).

IMO, the real problem of the page (and related pages for more advanced books) is the page title. I suggest: Rename these pages by deleting "Recommended". Every book is recommended by some and not recommended by others. The Recommended in the page title just adds unnecessary controversion. E.g., I would not recommend four of the currently six books on the page (for various reasons). Furthermore, I have problems with listing Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go on this page, because, IMO, it is not a first or second book, but is suitable for players up to 1d, or possibly stronger. IOW, everybody has different reasons why to recommend or not recommend a book for this page. Mutual tolerance helps its readers. The current version of the page with its attempted neutral style is much better than the almost useless opinion scattering style of RecommendedIntermediateBooks and RecommendedAdvancedBooks. Both pages could profit a lot from the current version of this page.

Hogweed: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-09 18:07) [#9723]

I am ambivalent about placing the tag of amateur or professional beside the author's name. However, I am not keen on Robert taking it upon himself to place his book on the page. The contents of a recommended page should be those which are genuinely recommended by the public. Perhaps SL could have some sort of poll to gauge feeling as to the contents of the page? Failing that, attribute who is recommending the book.

RobertJasiek: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-09 18:33) [#9724]

1) For fairness, to achieve your intention that authors do not recommend their own books on this recommendation page, every user must reveal his real name, so that anonymous users, who are authors, do not get an advantage. Unrealistic, because some users want to be anonymous.

2) If it becomes a recommendation by poll page or something like this, then some relevant books would be missing and another page including every First / Second Book would become useful. It is easier to simply change the title and remove Recommended from it.

3) Old books (especially those having been available for decades) are recommended by far too much in relation to newer books, simply because they are known everywhere, often because they were, for a long time, the only books on a topic. It does not serve any good if new books need to wait decades before they reach a similar distributioon.

4) An apparently great percentage of users are long-term players, who learnt from the old books and now are too strong to learn from the new books. This increases every poll advantage or signed name list advantage for old books.

5) What really matters about books is their quality, kind and amount of contents and didactics. This is what should be compared and used as a basis for recommendations!

6) There are reasons why authors recommend also their own books: a) Recommending only books by other authors would be unfair to themselves. b) The authors are also people interesting in promoting the game as well as possible. Recommending books with quality contents, even if their own books, is invaluable for this purpose. c) On average, non-authors recommend or review books too infrequently. (There are a few exceptions of players recommending their preferences, but the small number of such players does not create a reasonable balance. This does not affect just one author, but several authors.)

reply
RobertJasiek: ((no subject)) (2013-07-09 15:50) [#9715]

The Chambers Dictionary

"n amateur: an enthusiast or admirer; a person who practises something for the love of it, not as a profession; someone whose understanding of, or ability in, a particular art, etc. is superficial, trifling, or inexpert; a person who takes part in sport for pleasure (opp to professional); a dilettante.

n profession: a non-manual occupation requiring some degree of learning or training; a calling, habitual employment; the collective body of people engaged in any profession.

adj professional: of, belonging to or relating to a profession; engaged in a profession or in the profession in question; competing for money prizes or agains those who sometimes do so; undertaken as a means of subsistence, as opposed to amateur; showing the skill, artistry, demeanour or standard of conduct appropriate in a member of a profession or of a particular profession; (of a foul, etc.) deliberate, intended (to prevent the opposition from scoring) (euphem; sport).

n professional: someone who makes his or her living by an art that is also practised at an amateur level; someone who engages in sport for livelihood or gain or against those who do so (with various rules of interpretation for each sport) (opposite of amateur); a member of a profession; a person following a career; (in full, professional examination) any one of the successive examinations towards a degree in medicine (in Scottish universities)."

Cambridge International Dictionary of English

"amateur adj: taking part in an activity for pleasure, not as a job, or (of an activity) done for pleasure, not as a job.

amateur n: [...] (disapproving) You can use the word amateur to describe someone who lacks skill in what they do.

profession n: any type of work which needs a special training or a particular skill, often one which is respected because it involves a high level of education. [...] Some types of work which need special training and skill, such as being a doctor or lawyer, but not work in business or industry, are sometimes called the professions. Profession also refers to the people employed in a particular type of work.

professional adj: Professional means related to work that you do as a job. [...] Professional is often used to mean having the qualities that you connect with trained and skilled people, such as effectiveness, skill, organization and seriousness of manner [...] You describe someone as professional if they do as a job what people usually do as a hobby [...] Professional is also used to mean having the type of job that is respected because it involves a high level of education and training [...]

professional n: A professional is a person who has the type of job that needs a high level of education and training: [...] teachers, lawyers, doctors and other professionals. (infml) You can describe someone as a professional if they have worked hard in the same type of job for a long time and have become skilled at dealing with any problem that might happen. [...] Professional can refer to a person who does as a job what people usually do as a hobby [...] A professional is also a sportsperson, esp. a golf or tennis player, who is employed by a club to train its members in a particular sport."

Implications

Herman, altough your uses of the English words can be found in the dictionary definitions, they are not the only possible English meanings of the words. My uses of the words are also listed in the definitions, and I have not claimed my uses to be the only possible uses.

Professional can refer to a job, can refer to certified employment or can refer to other meanings, as cited above.

However, the dictionary definitions are too strict when they see a conflict beetween an amateur's pleasure and a professional's implied missing pleasure because of performing as a job.

X
Slarty: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-08 23:42) [#9718]

Once again, refer to SL's amateur and professional. It's well understood that amateurs can be strong. TL;DR

109.155.0.8: English? (2013-07-09 14:39) [#9721]

John F. Does Chambers actually say 'practiced'? It would be disappointing - amateurish even - for such a work to make such a mistake.

RobertJasiek: Re: English? (2013-07-09 15:43) [#9722]

Of course, it was my copy typo, which I have corrected now. Scrabble's source is correct.

HermanHiddema: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-10 12:30) [#9730]

I will try to explain one more time.

Words have meanings.

When words are combined, they can become terms. Such terms have meanings that need not follow the combined meaning of the original words.

Therefore, quoting individual words from a dictionary is meaningless. Use the definition for the term, not for its component words.

A cornfield is a field of corn.
An airfield is not a field of air, it is a place where airplanes land.

A Master of Science (MSc) is not simply someone who has mastered the science of a particular field, it is someone holding a degree awarded by universities to people who have met certain requirements.

A Go Professional is not simply someone who makes money with go, is is someone holding a title awarded by professional go organisations to people who have met certain requirements.

RobertJasiek: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-10 12:43) [#9731]

For the phrase "go professional", different meanings exist including

  • a person earning (a significant part of) his income from go-related activities,
  • a person called 'professional' (or an equivalent non-English word) initially by a so called professional go organisation.

A person can meet one or both descriptions.

HermanHiddema: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-10 12:48) [#9732]

No. That is just false. The first meaning simply does not exist. If you decide to call yourself a go professional, the go community will call you a liar, and justly so.

Hogweed: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-10 13:26) [#9733]

There is a "professional go player", this is commonly termed "go professional". You will also see "strong amateur who makes their living out of go", this is not commonly termed go professional. Terms such as Go coach, go organiser, or respected go author might apply their.

I think all the authors mentioned on this page are mentioned because they are respected.

Dieter: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-10 14:36) [#9734]

Even abbreviations can behave the way Herman points out. When we talk about "the world of the pros" we clearly are not marveling that mythical land where people earning a few bucks from writing books quibble about their status. We're marveling that mythical land where people are so strong at go that they think differently and - yes - earn a living, although we would probably accept the idea of a starving but still strong professional.

This is not the case in all domains. For example, I could rightly call myself a "professional musician" as soon as music became my primary source of income. I could possibly even call myself a "professional musician" if I depended on welfare but published music with the intention of making a living with it (but failing).

But I could not call myself a "star", even if I put stars across the covers of my albums or appeared in small print in a concert line up that included stars.

These days I'm playing table tennis and following videos by Brian Pace, an established teacher. He makes a living through his teaching but I would not call him a "table tennis professional" even though his wealth is probably higher than that of most professionals.

In the world of sports, "professional" is neither that of a "star" nor that of "making a living". Herman's comparison to Master of Science is spot on. That is of course a community view, a shared view, and we all know that Robert has no sensitivity whatsoever to what a community thinks, which is the root of the exhaustive marathons we're having here.

RobertJasiek: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-10 14:53) [#9737]

Sorry, but having a different, or in some cases minority, opinion is not the same as "having no sensitivity whatsoever to what a community thinks"!

Dieter: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-10 14:56) [#9739]

It is not necessarily. It is ok to agree to disagree on a topic. What you are doing is forcing a community to hold you in high esteem. That is not a minority view, that is usurpation.

RobertJasiek: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-10 15:08) [#9742]

You are wrong. WRT to the phrase "amateur Robert Jasiek" used to refer to a go book author and publisher, I want to convince you that this gives a partiall, sufficiently false impression of facts, so that a better phrase or omission of the word "amateur" is called for. This desired language correction has nothing to do with "forcing a community to hold you in high esteem.". Everybody is free to have an opinion of his choice about me. I do not restrict this freedom of opinion at all, I do not try to do so, and I do not force so.

RobertJasiek: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-10 14:45) [#9735]

Apparently you do not know, but I am not the only one with a variety of uses for the phrase "go professional". This use of English is not that of liars, but is of dynamic language users.

Your inflexible language use WRT to this phrase, guildes or oligopolists do not prevent others from using language dynamically WRT to this phrase.

Suggesting I would be perceived as a liar is a very inappropriate suggestion. Recall that I have called myself a "professional go book author, professional go book publisher, professional go teacher and amateur go player". It is you who rejects this clarity by "summarising" this as "amateur".

According to your language use, I would be a "go amateur whose professions are go book writing, go book publication and go teaching". What a nonsense use of language! Actually, it is worse than that: calling me WRT to my profession an "amateur" attacks my reputation and integrity. Concerning my profession, I am a "go professional whose professions are go book writing, go book publication and go teaching". Yes, I know, this use of the phrase is not officially certified, but is informal. Informally using language is not lying. To be clear: This use of the phrase does not imply being a go playing professional.

Your problem is caused by hiding the word certificate. There are

  • not certified go amateurs
  • not certified go professionals
  • certified go professionals

In particular, there can be

  • not certified and active go playing professionals
  • not certified and inactive go playing professionals (I think, Victor Bogdanov is an example)
  • certified and active go playing professionals
  • certified and inactive go playing professionals (e.g., persons who retired or moved to a foreign country)

Among the certified go professionals, the majority is said not to earn its living from go playing, but is said to earn its living from being a go teaching professional, which typically is understood to allow also book writing.

Dieter: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-10 14:52) [#9736]

Maybe we should make SL an amateur collaboration and forbid professionals to self advertise here. That would solve the issue for both parties, wouldn't it? Or we could charge for the usage of this collaborative platform for your professional activities? SL is good enough to provide you with free publicity but when it objects to have you recommend yourself as if it were a public view, then it becomes a bunch of oligopolists.

When the likes of Herman are not around anymore, SL will become your private website, sponsored by Arno. Maybe that's what you are after.

RobertJasiek: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-10 14:57) [#9738]

No.

Please do not meta-discuss by making random accusations. The discussion topic is one of language interpretation. That different opinions exist WRT to language interpretation does not justify your accusations.

Dieter: Re: ((no subject)) (2013-07-10 15:05) [#9740]

Right: I am fantastic. With that I don't mean you should admire me but that I have lots of fantasy.

I'll repeat this a few times in unexpected places. I hope you will not make false accusations then but stick to the meaning of words.

Have fun!

109.155.0.8: Japanese definition (2013-07-10 15:27) [#9743]

John F. Hermann: In my view no native speaker of English would class Robert as a go professional, for the various reasons you cite, and others. Furthermore, rather more than just calling him a liar if he so described himself, I believe many people would think he was actively trying to deceive them for profit (and so Robert, once again a plea to heed a native speaker - do not call yourself a go professional in English unless you want to risk your reputation through being thought deceitful). Nevertheless, it is arguable that 'go professional' is yet a fixed term in English and the restricted use would have to be squared with the wider use of 'golf professional' (a person who is employed by a golf club to teach members and give advice on equipment).

In any case, I do not think Robert intends to be deceitful, and he is guilty of nothing more than a cultural difference. At that level there are some grounds to justify his stance. For example, the Japanese rules of go specify definitions for professional and amateur (e.g. Chapter 10, Clause 64.1 of the 1949 version): "A person who makes it his profession to teach go to other people or to play teaching games with other people and so receives money or other emoluments shall be regarded as a professional go player [senmon kishi] irrespective of his grade."

Further, Clause 64.2 adds: "A person who is currently studying go with a view to becoming a professional go player as in the previous paragraph shall also be regarded as a professional go player as regards application of these rules."

Clause 65 says that "Persons other than those of the previous Clause, being those who simply play as enthusiasts of the game of go, shall be regarded as amateurs." [It says later that accepting prizes in amateur events does not void an amateur's status]

However, there are two problems with this from Robert's point of view: (1) he believes Japanese rules are a load of rubbish; (2) a professional is not allowed without prior declaration of his status to play in amateur events and to accept prizes.

Still, even if Robert takes this as grist to his mill, in ENGLISH it is much safer if he does NOT call himself a go professional, and he should use some transparent phrase such as "I earn my living from go as a teacher and writer" which will avoid the possible charge of deceit.

RobertJasiek: Re: Japanese definition (2013-07-10 15:16) [#9744]

Uh, English is always more difficult than I think:)

HermanHiddema: Re: Japanese definition (2013-07-10 15:49) [#9747]

Which does raise the question: If you repeatedly experience that your own understanding of the English language turns out to be flawed, why do you then always refuse to heed the words of those with a better grasp of that language? Really, in this respect, you are acting like the 10 kyu who will not accept the advice of the 5 dan. Perhaps it is time to learn: if people correct my English, they are probably right. Surely you have better and more interesting things to spend your time on than endless debates nit-picking subtle English language issues? I know I do.

RobertJasiek: Re: Japanese definition (2013-07-10 17:19) [#9749]

I am not convinced that my understanding of English WRT "go professional" is flawed. Discussion suggests that your understanding represents the majority interpretation of the phrase. However, to show that my understanding is wrong requires something much more profound than identifying that it is not the majority interpretation or than John's opinion on the matter. You have explained where your interpretation's thinking comes from, but not why it is the only linguistically valid meaning of the phrase.

I do not always reject advice from those with better language knowledge, but I sometimes reject advice that is brought forward with insufficient reasoning and justification.

WRT "amateur Robert Jasiek" your language is flawed. It is not your used meaning of "amateur" that is flawed (used in the context of a go forum, more specifically used in the meaning of implying "amateur player", yet more specifically applied to a person that indeed is an amateur player). It is your English style that is flawed, because text should express meaning as well as possible, but your phrase does not do so. In the given context of mentioning the specific go book's author (and publisher), speaking of "amateur" when referring to the author (and publisher) is at least ambiguous, and IMO also deliberately misleading. It would be trivially easy to remove the ambiguity entirely by writing "amateur player Robert Jasiek" or "Robert Jasiek".

When I read "written by amateur XY", then I understand or also understand "the author writes as an amateur, i.e., without substantial commercial interest". This possible alternative meaning in the given context is created by your weak English style in the particular phrase.

Instead of complaining about endless debates, simply write unambiguous, clear style (it takes only a moment to correct the phrase), and hours of discussion about misleading implications become superfluous.

HermanHiddema: Re: Japanese definition (2013-07-10 15:32) [#9746]

John, thanks for adding a native speaker's support to my assertion. I too do not believe that Robert intends to deceive.

[Note: edited John's post to escape square brackets so they appear in the text instead of creating wiki links]

Slarty: words in context mean things (2013-07-10 20:19) [#9750]

I'm a native speaker, so this is all rather obvious. Of course Robert decided I was joking earlier. His intention must be reasonable, but this discussion is marked by incompetence. Nothing we don't all go through sometime, mind you.

Let's examine the clause that is the fundamental source of this confusion!

blank is a book by professional <name>

This construction means "<name> is a professional". It does not mean "<name> is a professional author" because the word professional is used as a noun without any qualifications.

The noun professional, the thing which <name> is stated to be, refers to only one thing in our context, someone with a professional Go rank. Likewise "amateur" can only refer to the opposite of having a professional Go rank. You need not object to being called 5d rather than 5p.

This is not only the most obvious interpretation of the construction; it is the only one that makes any sense in the context of a page on English Go books, and it is enforced by the pattern's repeated use on the page.

RobertJasiek: Re: words in context mean things (2013-07-10 22:33) [#9751]

This construction means "<name> is a professional". It does not mean "<name> is a professional author" because the word professional is used as a noun without any qualifications.

Ok.

It also does not mean "<name> is a professional player" because the word professional is used as a noun without any qualifications.

Since the word professional is used as a noun without any qualifications, it is generic and so allows every reasonable more specific meaning. This can be, e.g., "author" or can be "player". In other words, the word professional is used as a noun without any qualifications, and so the meant specification(s) are ambiguous.

Now, you might object that no particular specification is being meant, but we have been told the contrary.

The noun professional, the thing which <name> is stated to be, refers to only one thing in our context, someone with a professional Go rank.

Here you lose me. You do not provide any explanation why it can refer to only one thing in our context and why that one thing must be "someone with a professional Go rank". Furthermore, you claim, without justification yet, that there would be only one context. I see at least two contexts: 1) the context of a go forum for and by people interested in go; 2) the context of the specific page and the specific sentences, which is about books and their authors.

(1) is the more general context. (2) is the more specific context. In English or German, usually (2) beats (1). OTOH, since this precedence might not be universally accepted, it is actually ambiguous which of the two contexts is being presumed.

This is not only the most obvious interpretation of the construction

Here you lose me again. Why is it obvious and why even the most obvious? If one argues about obvious at all, then what one reads immediately is more obvious than what one needs to think of in a broader environmental sense: the sentence is more obvious than the whole page, and yet more than the whole SL go forum.

it is the only one that makes any sense in the context of a page on English Go books

It is not the only one that makes sense. Interpreting "professional (author)" also makes sense. In fact, the relation between "go books" and "go book author(s)" makes very much sense. It makes more sense than a relation between "go books" and "go playing professionals", because the latter relation is not required for the existence of go books, while the former relation is required: books need authors; books do not need authors that are professional players.

This brings us to "obvious" again: something needed is more obvious than something optional.

it is enforced by the pattern's repeated use on the page.

Correct, but this argument applies also to the other interpretation...!

Slarty: Re: words in context mean things (2013-07-10 22:53) [#9752]

I told you what it means to a native English speaker and the reason why. You lost me at

It also does not mean "<name> is a professional player" because the word professional is used as a noun without any qualifications.

Perhaps you should read my original post. Professional and amateur have obvious established meanings in the Go world. These go-to meanings are manifest when you look them up on Sensei's Library.

RobertJasiek: Re: words in context mean things (2013-07-11 06:03) [#9753]

So you start with the prejudice that amateur and professional (without specification by additional words) would have obvious established meanings in the Go world (I disagree, because this is not so: different meanings have also been used and understood before, and misunderstandings have arisen before in similar, more specific, book authorship-related contexts) to imply that different meanings may not be possible (I disagree, because language is not static), unless specified by additional words.

oren: Re: words in context mean things (2013-07-11 18:34) [#9764]

It's not prejudice. The go community does understand the difference between professional and amateur when discussed on go related sites.

RobertJasiek: Re: words in context mean things (2013-07-11 18:45) [#9766]

The majority of the go community. I have seen go players who have, in similar cases, misunderstood it as "amateur author".

reply
tapir: WME of opinion pages + "on the page, but not really recommended" (2013-07-10 22:25) [#9741]

Before the WME the page was a question and answer thread about book recommendations for beginners, everyone answered to the best of his knowledge and according to personal preference. It is a recipe for controversy to WME opinions according to personal preference, I would rather either accept proposals at face value or attempt to discuss openly about the merits of the different books.

We won't avoid the discussion by hiding behind professional / amateur discussion even if we all enjoy this "semantics" / "teaching English" games very much. It is perfectly obvious from the page history, that the attributes were only added after RJ put his book on the page to mark it as "on the page, but not really recommended". And before the discussion goes on forever: I hereby recommend this book, so please no "self-recommended by the author" either. It might be a good start for a beginner and should be on this page. So please, less games more arguments.

 
Back to forum     Back to page

New reply


Forum for Recommended First Books
RecentChanges · StartingPoints · About
Edit page ·Search · Related · Page info · Latest diff
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
RecentChanges
StartingPoints
About
RandomPage
Search position
Page history
Latest page diff
Partner sites:
Go Teaching Ladder
Goproblems.com
Login / Prefs
Tools
Sensei's Library