tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33211251.post5518675330515976150..comments2024-01-08T19:49:13.932+00:00Comments on Froogville: Bon mot for the week (Sun Tzu is crap series)Frooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06738623732860210935noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33211251.post-23347471518774391072011-01-23T03:29:55.648+00:002011-01-23T03:29:55.648+00:00Yes, I'd like to know what the original is her...Yes, I'd like to know what the original is here. I may consult The Weeble. I think there's a strong chance that the "in danger" is more like "be at risk" or "be at a disadvantage", and in military contexts clearly <i>means</i> "be likely to lose".<br /><br />Sun Tzu - and the other ancient Chinese writers - probably wouldn't seem quite so CRAP if we didn't have to read them in Chinglish translations most of the time.Frooghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06738623732860210935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33211251.post-48949115736282635682011-01-21T21:26:19.308+00:002011-01-21T21:26:19.308+00:00It's probably too much to hope for -- Sun Tzu ...It's probably too much to hope for -- Sun Tzu has never struck me as an advocate of roundabout or ironic speech -- but I'd like to believe the reason one who knows [etc.] "will not be in danger" is exactly that: that he will avoid battle in the first place.JEShttp://johnesimpson.com/noreply@blogger.com