[005]
72.66.98.196
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Right, that should take care of all the {{Zero Context Example}} that I didn\'t delete for being redundant or wrong.
to:
Right, that should take care of all the {{Zero Context Example}}s that I didn\\\'t delete for being redundant or wrong.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Right, that should take care of all the {{Zero Contex Example}} that I didn\'t delete for being redundant or wrong.
to:
Right, that should take care of all the {{Zero Context Example}} that I didn\\\'t delete for being redundant or wrong.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Right, that should take care of all the ZeroContexExamples that I didn\'t delete for being redundant or wrong.
to:
Right, that should take care of all the {{Zero Contex Example}} that I didn\\\'t delete for being redundant or wrong.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I prefer Christian Tobler\'s terminology where you are either \
to:
I prefer Christian Tobler\\\'s terminology where you are either \\\"hard\\\" or \\\"soft\\\" in the bind, so you can\\\'t be confused with the strong or weak of the blade. I am referring to strong and weak as a noun rather than an adjective, which is what the parts of the sword glossary is since it does not contain the names of techniques. Maybe we could add the article \\\"the\\\" to the definitions so we know we are talking about \\\"the Strong\\\" of the blade rather than strong pressure in the bind? I think you can say that you bind \\\"with strength\\\" or \\\"strongly\\\" so that the sentence provides enough context to avoid confusion. Since this article concerns all the martial arts of Europe that predate classical fencing and its French-centric terminology, I personally feel that we should use English when not talking about a specific national system. Perhaps we could have the french terms in parenthesis after strong and weak for the benefit of those familiar with modern fencing? As I understand it the German terms used by Ringeck are Storck (strong) and Schwech (weak), and the Italian that Capoferro uses is Forte (strong) and Debole (weak).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I prefer Christian Tobler\'s terminology where you are either \
to:
I prefer Christian Tobler\\\'s terminology where you are either \\\"hard\\\" or \\\"soft\\\" in the bind, so you can\\\'t be confused with the strong or weak of the blade. I am referring to strong and weak as a noun rather than an adjective, which is what the parts of the sword glossary is since it does not contain the names of techniques. Maybe we could add the article \\\"the\\\" to the definitions so we know we are talking about \\\"the Strong\\\" of the blade rather than strong pressure in the bind? I think you can say that you bind \\\"with strength\\\" or \\\"strongly\\\" so that the sentence provides enough context to avoid confusion. Since this article concerns all the martial arts of Europe that predate classical fencing and its French terminology, I personally feel that we should use English when not talking about a specific national system. Perhaps we could have the french terms in parenthesis after strong and weak for the benefit of those familiar with modern fencing? As I understand it the German terms used by Ringeck are Storck (strong) and Schwech (weak), and the Italian that Capoferro uses is Forte (strong) and Debole (weak).
