I haven't done a rollout but I was surprised that my double was wrong
when my equity was as high as 0.7

So it inspires a rather obvious construction problem.
In a money game in a no-contact position, if a player
owns the cube and is on-roll and the correct play is ND/T,
what is the on-roll player's maximum equity?

Paul

XGID=-E-EABA------------dbcaab-:2:1:1:00:16:4:3:0:10
X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon

Score is X:16 O:4. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O O O O |
| | | O O O O |
| | | O O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | X X |
| | | X X |
| | | X X | +---+
| | | X X X | | 4 |
| | | X X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 40 O: 53 X-O: 16-4
Cube: 4, X own cube
X on roll, cube action

Analyzed in XG Roller+
Player Winning Chances: 71.88% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 28.12% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)

Cubeless Equities: No Double=+0.438, Double=+0.874

Cubeful Equities:
No redouble: +0.723
Redouble/Take: +0.705 (-0.018)
Redouble/Pass: +1.000 (+0.277)

Best Cube action: No redouble / Take
Percentage of wrong pass needed to make the double decision right: 5.6%

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10

On 3/22/2022 4:46 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> So it inspires a rather obvious construction problem.
> In a money game in a no-contact position, if a player
> owns the cube and is on-roll and the correct play is ND/T,
> what is the on-roll player's maximum equity?

At first I didn't see your "no-contact" proviso, so I came
up with the position below, which I think is interesting in
its own right. I'll have to think more about your actual
question later.

XGID=aBBBBBBA-AA-----------bcd-:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10

X:Player 1 O:Player 2
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O |
| | | O O O |
| | | O O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| | | | +---+
| | | X X X X X X | | 2 |
| X X X | | X X X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 68 O: 41 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action

Analyzed in Rollout
No redouble
Player Winning Chances: 76.17% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 23.83% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
Redouble/Take
Player Winning Chances: 76.17% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 23.83% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)

Cubeful Equities:
No redouble: +0.922
Redouble/Take: +0.908 (-0.013)
Redouble/Pass: +1.000 (+0.078)

Best Cube action: No redouble / Take
Percentage of wrong pass needed to make the double decision right: 12.7%

Rollout:
5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 271828
Moves: 4-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller+
Search interval: Large
Confidence No Double: ± 0.004 (+0.918..+0.925)
Confidence Double: ± 0.004 (+0.905..+0.912)

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.207.pre-release

---
Tim Chow

On 3/22/2022 4:46 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> So it inspires a rather obvious construction problem.
> In a money game in a no-contact position, if a player
> owns the cube and is on-roll and the correct play is ND/T,
> what is the on-roll player's maximum equity?

I think your best bet will be a long race. Perhaps
surprisingly, XG doesn't play long races very well, so I
don't entirely trust the rollout below. But it illustrates
the general idea.

XGID=------CCCBCA-abccbbb------:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10

X:Player 1 O:Player 2
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| O O O O O O | | O |
| O O O O O | | O |
| O O | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X X X | | X | +---+
| X X X X | | X | | 2 |
| X X X X X | | X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 122 O: 133 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action

Analyzed in Rollout
No redouble
Player Winning Chances: 74.23% (G:0.07% B:0.00%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 25.77% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
Redouble/Take
Player Winning Chances: 74.24% (G:0.12% B:0.00%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 25.76% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)

Cubeful Equities:
No redouble: +0.805
Redouble/Take: +0.802 (-0.004)
Redouble/Pass: +1.000 (+0.195)

Best Cube action: No redouble / Take
Percentage of wrong pass needed to make the double decision right: 1.8%

Rollout:
1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 271828
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
Confidence No Double: ± 0.006 (+0.799..+0.812)
Confidence Double: ± 0.009 (+0.792..+0.811)

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.207.pre-release

---
Tim Chow

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 1:32:23 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 3/22/2022 4:46 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So it inspires a rather obvious construction problem.
> > In a money game in a no-contact position, if a player
> > owns the cube and is on-roll and the correct play is ND/T,
> > what is the on-roll player's maximum equity?
> At first I didn't see your "no-contact" proviso, so I came
> up with the position below, which I think is interesting in
> its own right. I'll have to think more about your actual
> question later.
>
> XGID=aBBBBBBA-AA-----------bcd-:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
>
> X:Player 1 O:Player 2
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | | | O O O |
> | | | O O O |
> | | | O O |
> | | | O |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |
> | | O | |
> | | | |
> | | | | +---+
> | | | X X X X X X | | 2 |
> | X X X | | X X X X X X | +---+
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 68 O: 41 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 2, X own cube
> X on roll, cube action
> Analyzed in Rollout
> No redouble
> Player Winning Chances: 76.17% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
> Opponent Winning Chances: 23.83% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
> Redouble/Take
> Player Winning Chances: 76.17% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
> Opponent Winning Chances: 23.83% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
>
> Cubeful Equities:
> No redouble: +0.922
> Redouble/Take: +0.908 (-0.013)
> Redouble/Pass: +1.000 (+0.078)
> Best Cube action: No redouble / Take
> Percentage of wrong pass needed to make the double decision right: 12.7%
>
> Rollout:
> 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
> Dice Seed: 271828
> Moves: 4-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller+
> Search interval: Large
> Confidence No Double: ± 0.004 (+0.918..+0.925)
> Confidence Double: ± 0.004 (+0.905..+0.912)
>
> eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.207.pre-release

Thanks a lot.
I love the word "proviso" here.
It's an excellent word choice, and I don't think I would have thought of it..
And I tend to think I'm a strong verbal type because I read a lot and got the max 800
in the verbal section of the GRE.

Paul

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 1:32:23 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 3/22/2022 4:46 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So it inspires a rather obvious construction problem.
> > In a money game in a no-contact position, if a player
> > owns the cube and is on-roll and the correct play is ND/T,
> > what is the on-roll player's maximum equity?
> At first I didn't see your "no-contact" proviso, so I came
> up with the position below, which I think is interesting in
> its own right. I'll have to think more about your actual
> question later.
>
> XGID=aBBBBBBA-AA-----------bcd-:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
>
> X:Player 1 O:Player 2
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | | | O O O |
> | | | O O O |
> | | | O O |
> | | | O |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |
> | | O | |
> | | | |
> | | | | +---+
> | | | X X X X X X | | 2 |
> | X X X | | X X X X X X | +---+
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 68 O: 41 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 2, X own cube
> X on roll, cube action
> Analyzed in Rollout
> No redouble
> Player Winning Chances: 76.17% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
> Opponent Winning Chances: 23.83% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
> Redouble/Take
> Player Winning Chances: 76.17% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
> Opponent Winning Chances: 23.83% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
>
> Cubeful Equities:
> No redouble: +0.922
> Redouble/Take: +0.908 (-0.013)
> Redouble/Pass: +1.000 (+0.078)
> Best Cube action: No redouble / Take
> Percentage of wrong pass needed to make the double decision right: 12.7%
>
> Rollout:
> 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
> Dice Seed: 271828
> Moves: 4-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller+
> Search interval: Large
> Confidence No Double: ± 0.004 (+0.918..+0.925)
> Confidence Double: ± 0.004 (+0.905..+0.912)
>
> eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.207.pre-release

I would hold this one too, and the equity is also in line with what I would have thought.
It's clearly possible for the opponent to get a shot and hit a shot, and it seems well worth it
to avoid this risk by holding.

Paul

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 8:41:34 PM UTC, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 1:32:23 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> > On 3/22/2022 4:46 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > So it inspires a rather obvious construction problem.
> > > In a money game in a no-contact position, if a player
> > > owns the cube and is on-roll and the correct play is ND/T,
> > > what is the on-roll player's maximum equity?
> > At first I didn't see your "no-contact" proviso, so I came
> > up with the position below, which I think is interesting in
> > its own right. I'll have to think more about your actual
> > question later.
> >
> > XGID=aBBBBBBA-AA-----------bcd-:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
> >
> > X:Player 1 O:Player 2
> > Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
> > +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> > | | | O O O |
> > | | | O O O |
> > | | | O O |
> > | | | O |
> > | | | |
> > | |BAR| |
> > | | O | |
> > | | | |
> > | | | | +---+
> > | | | X X X X X X | | 2 |
> > | X X X | | X X X X X X | +---+
> > +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> > Pip count X: 68 O: 41 X-O: 0-0
> > Cube: 2, X own cube
> > X on roll, cube action
> > Analyzed in Rollout
> > No redouble
> > Player Winning Chances: 76.17% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
> > Opponent Winning Chances: 23.83% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
> > Redouble/Take
> > Player Winning Chances: 76.17% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
> > Opponent Winning Chances: 23.83% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
> >
> > Cubeful Equities:
> > No redouble: +0.922
> > Redouble/Take: +0.908 (-0.013)
> > Redouble/Pass: +1.000 (+0.078)
> > Best Cube action: No redouble / Take
> > Percentage of wrong pass needed to make the double decision right: 12.7%
> >
> > Rollout:
> > 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
> > Dice Seed: 271828
> > Moves: 4-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller+
> > Search interval: Large
> > Confidence No Double: ± 0.004 (+0.918..+0.925)
> > Confidence Double: ± 0.004 (+0.905..+0.912)
> >
> > eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.207.pre-release
> I would hold this one too, and the equity is also in line with what I would have thought.
> It's clearly possible for the opponent to get a shot and hit a shot, and it seems well worth it
> to avoid this risk by holding.
>
> Paul

"Avoid this risk" sounds unclear in retrospect. I mean that I would rather have the horror sequences
on a 2 cube than a 4 cube. There's more scope for horror than for miracles..

Paul

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 1:52:36 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 3/22/2022 4:46 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So it inspires a rather obvious construction problem.
> > In a money game in a no-contact position, if a player
> > owns the cube and is on-roll and the correct play is ND/T,
> > what is the on-roll player's maximum equity?
> I think your best bet will be a long race. Perhaps
> surprisingly, XG doesn't play long races very well, so I
> don't entirely trust the rollout below. But it illustrates
> the general idea.
>
> XGID=------CCCBCA-abccbbb------:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
> X:Player 1 O:Player 2
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | O O O O O O | | O |
> | O O O O O | | O |
> | O O | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | X X X | | X | +---+
> | X X X X | | X | | 2 |
> | X X X X X | | X | +---+
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 122 O: 133 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 2, X own cube
> X on roll, cube action
> Analyzed in Rollout
> No redouble
> Player Winning Chances: 74.23% (G:0.07% B:0.00%)
> Opponent Winning Chances: 25.77% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
> Redouble/Take
> Player Winning Chances: 74.24% (G:0.12% B:0.00%)
> Opponent Winning Chances: 25.76% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
>
> Cubeful Equities:
> No redouble: +0.805
> Redouble/Take: +0.802 (-0.004)
> Redouble/Pass: +1.000 (+0.195)
> Best Cube action: No redouble / Take
> Percentage of wrong pass needed to make the double decision right: 1.8%
>
> Rollout:
> 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
> Dice Seed: 271828
> Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
> Confidence No Double: ± 0.006 (+0.799..+0.812)
> Confidence Double: ± 0.009 (+0.792..+0.811)
> eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.207.pre-release

Tim,

This position seems a bit anti-Axelian for my taste because the ultra-simple
rule of 10% and Robertie's 8/9/12 work both work absolutely beautifully here.
10% - 1 gives you 133.2 so we're just a microscopic 0.2 away from a double,
giving an ultra-marginal hold.
But Robertie's rule give a tiny double because 10.98 < 11 -- still it ain't bad here.

Paul

On 3/23/2022 4:36 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> I love the word "proviso" here.
> It's an excellent word choice, and I don't think I would have thought of it.

One somewhat obscure word that I like to use sometimes is "procrustean."
In today's bureaucratized world, "procrustean" is all too often a
disturbingly accurate description of many rules and actions that we
face on a daily basis, and there is no other word that captures exactly
the same nuance.

I wonder if you have seen this XKCD comic:

https://xkcd.com/2591/

---
Tim Chow

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 1:52:33 AM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 3/23/2022 4:36 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I love the word "proviso" here.
> > It's an excellent word choice, and I don't think I would have thought of it.
> One somewhat obscure word that I like to use sometimes is "procrustean."
> In today's bureaucratized world, "procrustean" is all too often a
> disturbingly accurate description of many rules and actions that we
> face on a daily basis, and there is no other word that captures exactly
> the same nuance.
>
> I wonder if you have seen this XKCD comic:
>
> https://xkcd.com/2591/

The word "procrustean" is one I've seen many times before.
However, when I googled the definition, I see it means nothing
close to what I thought it meant. I thought it meant something like "ancient".

Strange because 800-scorers on GREs are definitely expected to know words like this.
Maybe the multiple-choice aspect makes high scores easier.

But there's the fact that you don't usually need to get every single question right to get 800.

For a thread like this, it's hard to resist replying from Pedantsville.
Obviously, I have seen the comic you mention. Anyone with minimal interest and curiosity
would be bound to click on the link before replying.
The meaningful question is surely whether I "had" seen the comic; not "have".

No, I had never seen it before. Thanks for sharing it. It is quite funny.

Paul

On 3/24/2022 4:43 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> The word "procrustean" is one I've seen many times before.
> However, when I googled the definition, I see it means nothing
> close to what I thought it meant. I thought it meant something like "ancient".

I could imagine coming to that conclusion based on the word "crusty,"
which is commonly used in the phrase "crusty old man," along with words
like "primordial" and "primeval."

In case you didn't discover this from Googling, the word derives from
the legend of Procrustes. Once you hear that legend, you're unlikely
to forget it.

On the topic of words that don't mean what some people think they mean,
I recall someone who thought the word "swarthy" meant "muscular." This
may be because the term is often used to describe an attractive man, so
if you don't know what the word means, you might make the wrong guess
about what feature is being singled out for admiration.

---
Tim Chow

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 1:23:44 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 3/24/2022 4:43 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The word "procrustean" is one I've seen many times before.
> > However, when I googled the definition, I see it means nothing
> > close to what I thought it meant. I thought it meant something like "ancient".
> I could imagine coming to that conclusion based on the word "crusty,"
> which is commonly used in the phrase "crusty old man," along with words
> like "primordial" and "primeval."
>
> In case you didn't discover this from Googling, the word derives from
> the legend of Procrustes. Once you hear that legend, you're unlikely
> to forget it.
>
> On the topic of words that don't mean what some people think they mean,
> I recall someone who thought the word "swarthy" meant "muscular." This
> may be because the term is often used to describe an attractive man, so
> if you don't know what the word means, you might make the wrong guess
> about what feature is being singled out for admiration.

A fact that causes much amusement is that when people mishear phrases the first time,
then further repetitions of the same phrase reinforce the mishearing.

For example, some people think the phrase is "It's a doggie-dog world" rather than "It's a dog-eat-dog world".
I used to think people said "For all intensive purposes" instead of "For all intents and purposes."
At my school, one of the corridors was referred to as "the covered way" and some people thought it was
"the cupboard way".

Paul

On 3/24/2022 10:30 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> For example, some people think the phrase is "It's a doggie-dog world" rather than "It's a dog-eat-dog world".
> I used to think people said "For all intensive purposes" instead of "For all intents and purposes."
> At my school, one of the corridors was referred to as "the covered way" and some people thought it was
> "the cupboard way".

There is a database of these here:

https://eggcorns.lascribe.net/browse-eggcorns

It includes the first two of your three examples. See also the book,
"The Ants are My Friends," by Martin Toseland. The title of this book
is a mondegreen from Bob Dylan's "Blowing in the Wind."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondegreen#Etymology

---
Tim Chow

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:48:31 AM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 3/24/2022 10:30 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > For example, some people think the phrase is "It's a doggie-dog world" rather than "It's a dog-eat-dog world".
> > I used to think people said "For all intensive purposes" instead of "For all intents and purposes."
> > At my school, one of the corridors was referred to as "the covered way" and some people thought it was
> > "the cupboard way".
> There is a database of these here:
>
> https://eggcorns.lascribe.net/browse-eggcorns
>
> It includes the first two of your three examples. See also the book,
> "The Ants are My Friends," by Martin Toseland. The title of this book
> is a mondegreen from Bob Dylan's "Blowing in the Wind."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondegreen#Etymology

The "doggy-dog" one was given by William Leith as an example to show that something funny doesn't necessarily
make a workable joke.
Leith was at some social gathering where people took it in turn to tell jokes. So he thought "What's the funniest thing
that ever happened to me?" The incident that came to mind was that a friend said "Yes, it's a doggy-dog world." meaning "dog-eat-dog".
Then he realised that it wouldn't make a good joke, and was stuck while trying to think of something else.

Paul Epstein

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 3:05:29 PM UTC, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:48:31 AM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> > On 3/24/2022 10:30 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > For example, some people think the phrase is "It's a doggie-dog world" rather than "It's a dog-eat-dog world".
> > > I used to think people said "For all intensive purposes" instead of "For all intents and purposes."
> > > At my school, one of the corridors was referred to as "the covered way" and some people thought it was
> > > "the cupboard way".
> > There is a database of these here:
> >
> > https://eggcorns.lascribe.net/browse-eggcorns
> >
> > It includes the first two of your three examples. See also the book,
> > "The Ants are My Friends," by Martin Toseland. The title of this book
> > is a mondegreen from Bob Dylan's "Blowing in the Wind."
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondegreen#Etymology
> The "doggy-dog" one was given by William Leith as an example to show that something funny doesn't necessarily
> make a workable joke.
> Leith was at some social gathering where people took it in turn to tell jokes. So he thought "What's the funniest thing
> that ever happened to me?" The incident that came to mind was that a friend said "Yes, it's a doggy-dog world." meaning "dog-eat-dog".
> Then he realised that it wouldn't make a good joke, and was stuck while trying to think of something else.
>
> Paul Epstein
This is the piece: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/great-buildup-pity-about-the-punchline-2324645.html
Not sure I remembered it accurately but I hadn't read it since 29 years ago.

Paul

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 1:23:44 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 3/24/2022 4:43 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The word "procrustean" is one I've seen many times before.
> > However, when I googled the definition, I see it means nothing
> > close to what I thought it meant. I thought it meant something like "ancient".
> I could imagine coming to that conclusion based on the word "crusty,"
> which is commonly used in the phrase "crusty old man," along with words
> like "primordial" and "primeval."
>
> In case you didn't discover this from Googling, the word derives from
> the legend of Procrustes. Once you hear that legend, you're unlikely
> to forget it.
>
> On the topic of words that don't mean what some people think they mean,
> I recall someone who thought the word "swarthy" meant "muscular." This
> may be because the term is often used to describe an attractive man, so
> if you don't know what the word means, you might make the wrong guess
> about what feature is being singled out for admiration.

Lin Yutang seems to have remembered the legend but forgotten the word coined by the
legend. A recent London Review of Books article says:
"Lin Yutang, a Chinese American writer whose book My Country and My People was a bestseller
thanks to Pearl Buck’s sponsorship, was a vocal critic of Richards’s Basic English and criticised
the attempt to abolish hanzi, describing it as an act of trimming the foot to fit the shoe."
Of course, he should have said "The attempt to abolish hanzi is procrustean.."
But, very unfortunately for him, he died before he had the opportunity to meet Tim Chow.

I was surprised to learn that you have used this word somewhat recently --
"being too procrustean about respecting those sharp boundaries can do
violence to the intended concept."

Paul

On 4/7/2022 2:04 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Lin Yutang, a Chinese American writer whose book My Country and My People was a bestseller
> thanks to Pearl Buck’s sponsorship, was a vocal critic of Richards’s Basic English and criticised
> the attempt to abolish hanzi, describing it as an act of trimming the foot to fit the shoe."
> Of course, he should have said "The attempt to abolish hanzi is procrustean."

Well, as you may have guessed, there is a Chinese saying (or "chengyu")
削足适履 that literally means to trim the foot to fit the shoe. But yes,
"procrustean" is an excellent translation of that saying into English.

---
Tim Chow

Timothy Chow <tchow12000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 4/7/2022 2:04 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "Lin Yutang, a Chinese American writer whose book My Country and My
>People was a bestseller
>> thanks to Pearl Buck’s sponsorship, was a vocal critic of
>Richards’s Basic English and criticised
>> the attempt to abolish hanzi, describing it as an act of trimming the
>foot to fit the shoe."
>> Of course, he should have said "The attempt to abolish hanzi is procrustean."
>
>Well, as you may have guessed, there is a Chinese saying (or "chengyu")
>削足适履 that literally means to trim the foot to fit the shoe. But yes,
>"procrustean" is an excellent translation of that saying into English.

The Brothers Grimm version of the Cinderella story has Cinderella's
stepsisters cutting off parts of their feet in an attempt to convince
the Prince that the lost slipper fits them. Fortunately (for
Cinderella) doves alert the Prince to the slipper filling with
blood.

--bks

I'm told that there's a chengyu applied to retired men that
translates as, "walk, walk, eat, eat".

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 1:01:26 PM UTC+1, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> Timothy Chow <tchow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 4/7/2022 2:04 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> "Lin Yutang, a Chinese American writer whose book My Country and My
> >People was a bestseller
> >> thanks to Pearl Buck’s sponsorship, was a vocal critic of
> >Richards’s Basic English and criticised
> >> the attempt to abolish hanzi, describing it as an act of trimming the
> >foot to fit the shoe."
> >> Of course, he should have said "The attempt to abolish hanzi is procrustean."
> >
> >Well, as you may have guessed, there is a Chinese saying (or "chengyu")
> >削足适履 that literally means to trim the foot to fit the shoe. But yes,
> >"procrustean" is an excellent translation of that saying into English.
> The Brothers Grimm version of the Cinderella story has Cinderella's
> stepsisters cutting off parts of their feet in an attempt to convince
> the Prince that the lost slipper fits them. Fortunately (for
> Cinderella) doves alert the Prince to the slipper filling with
> blood.
.....
Yes, and after cutting their feet, the stepsisters resumed working on
their backgammon analysis (hint, hint).

Paul

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:51:06 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 2:04 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > "Lin Yutang, a Chinese American writer whose book My Country and My People was a bestseller
> > thanks to Pearl Buck’s sponsorship, was a vocal critic of Richards’s Basic English and criticised
> > the attempt to abolish hanzi, describing it as an act of trimming the foot to fit the shoe."
> > Of course, he should have said "The attempt to abolish hanzi is procrustean."
> Well, as you may have guessed, there is a Chinese saying (or "chengyu")
> 削足适履 that literally means to trim the foot to fit the shoe. But yes,
> "procrustean" is an excellent translation of that saying into English.

Very interesting, but you're still keeping me in suspense.
I'm pretty sure my Gruntyization is correct, and I'm looking forward to getting that confirmed.

Paul