Because it is reasonable to say that those vying for the title of strongest swordsman primarily need to use swordmanship in order to enter the swordsmanship criteria and vie for the title.
But why is that not their swordsmanship?
That's what I said in my first replay to you, you have decided what swordsmanship is and then are using your own definition to prove what swordsmanship is and isn't. It's circular logic based on nothing. Why did you ignore Cabaji example?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
