Grammar -- They themselves...

Not to me – I think the choice of the reflexive pronoun is proper in this context.

Only if you're not interested in rhetoric.

They themselves sounds better, and if you're giving a speech you'd want to use that phrase.

Other than that it is redundant.

Thanks! I'll leave the sentence as it stands.

Another question -- I am in the process of writing Volume Three of my books on the history, concepts, and philosophies of this old karate / kung fu system. This has never been done in English before. Vol. 1 is nearly 600 pages, vol. 2 is about 480, and vol. 3 looks to shape up to about 450 or more.

Would it be proper to call the set of three books a "series"? I don't believe "trilogy" applies here, plus I am not sure if there might be a vol. 4. I wasn't sure there would be enough historical and philosophical information for a vol. 2, and now I am nearly finished with vol. 3...

I was under the impression that a "series" woud be a set of several (6 to 10) related books. Can it be 3 books with the option for a 4th sometime in the future?

Series seems fine to me, but your publisher would have a better idea.

I am the publisher... and the author.

If you're happy with series go for it.

I would go with series and I would also seriously consider dividing up the books so they're maybe 300 pages or so apiece and no more. This works out to around 100k words, which is still a lot to ask people to read, even for scholarly works.

And talk to a professional editor if you haven't already. No one should trust themselves as their own editor.

Not really answering your question, but I would say:

Persons striving to exceed the expertise and skill level of the founder of their system will occasionally modify that which they have yet to master.

A perfectly solid and sensible alternate. Thanks.

The sentiment I am trying to covey is that some have given up even trying to master or accomplish a technique, concept, or method, and rather than continuing to try, they modify or delete it altogether. Mostly, this comes from not fully understanding the purpose for the technique or the original structure of the training. They only see that it is difficult to achieve.

If one was shooting hoops and just didn't make it as often as he would like, he might just say it's too hard, or he could lower the hoop, or eliminate the need to score by making the shot anyway (changing the rules for his own style of basketball). Meanwhile, the guy who trains daily for years has made the NBA.

Your specialty.



For example: this sentence - "Persons striving to exceed the expertise and skill level of the founder of their system will occasionally modify that which they have yet to master." That's one unwieldy sentence.

It's his sentence. I work with what I'm given.

But thankfully, you're here, and you'll deal with it, right, because you're here for something.

I'm here for the skittles and beer.

Hows this: "People without experience and skills **** up."

You're bored; I would be, too.

Good night, bobsal . . .

Good night, Glennn.

That does have a je ne sais quoi.

I am swavvy e deboneair at times.

I always come down half hard and half soft on questions about Uechi-Ryū Karate-Dō when it involves a slap in the face to other exponents of the art.

'They themselves', as my learned colleague izzythepush has noted, is redundant if the writing is formal but ok in colloquial language.

Does the author of a series of volumes on karate want to stick the spear hand into other participants?

"Exponents, striving for excellence, may occasionally attempt to develop techniques that they haven't mastered."

The velvet writing glove.

Actually, I was expressing that some older techniques from the original system were deemed too difficult, anachronistic, or too "Chinese" by some of the Japanese exponents of the system. They were therefor deleted from the system or modified to be acceptable to Japanese practitioners.

This is a fact published by Uechi Kanei Sensei himself, and explained further by one of his top senior students in later publications. I was a student of Kanei Sensei, and later of that senior student (I was his clerical assistant before resigning and enrolling under the last active student of the founder of the system).

In Japan, the modified style is "Gendai UechiRyu" (2nd-Generation style UechiRyu).

Some modern practitioners are not trying to "develop techniques they haven't mastered", but bypassing/deleting the older techniques that call for a different stance, posture, breathing pattern, balancing and centering methods, a non-competitive attitude, and a completely different set of ethics and philosophies as taught by the founder. And this is not all modern practitioners, just some.

Please note -- I am not delivering a "slap in the face" or a nukite to other participants, nor do I slyly intend to. In all my writings, I state often that my books are written strictly from a Zankai point of view, and do not direct the training or change the instruction given by others.

From Vol. 1:

"The contents of this publication are not intended to contradict the teachings of others, and are neither directive nor serve as a guideline or suggestion for the training or administration of any system, style, or school of karate other than the UechiRyu Zankai. Everything in this book represents a Zankai perspective. Regardless of how strongly-worded, insistent, or controversial any piece of information may be, the purpose is non-confrontational and the reader may freely believe or reject it. This book was not written to convince, proselytize, or initiate polemics, but simply to share some understanding of the principles, ethics, and concepts taught within the UechiRyu Zankai. If you wish, you can consider the entire book to be purely an expression of my personal opinion."

And later,

"Finally, nowhere in this book or in the dojo do I state that this or any style is better, superior, or preferable to any other style or system. There are only differences. Ultimately the practitioner chooses his path according to his needs and preference. We do our best where we feel our best. To each his own."

Such is reiterated in all of my writings.

Thanks.