Accordial: The Word for In-and-Out Motion between Opposing Forces

“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” — Mark Twain

Published in

S.E.F. Blog

8 min readDec 11, 2023

Language is a powerful technology for expressing complex ideas, emotions, and actions.

Along with the invention of fire, one could say language is one of the most outstanding human technological achievements.

However, there are times when language falls short, and we struggle to find the right word to describe a specific concept or phenomenon.

One such instance is the in-and-out motion between two opposing forces.

This article explores the need for a word to describe this particular motion, the limitations of existing words, and proposes an improved term to fill this linguistic gap.

Like the absence of a word for the color blue in ancient texts, the lack of a term for in-and-out motion between two opponents in the engagement of force has led to difficulties in communication and understanding.

Use of the term “Accordial” is a proposed solution in martial arts.

As with many areas of war innovation, it is further proposed that the term “Accordial” may have a broader application outside of just martial arts to describe like types of motion.

Akin to the internet, its original intent was a combat communication device.

In time, however, the internet ultimately evolved into something more: a channel of transmission for the free market systems of the world.

What is In-and-Out Motion in Combat?

In-and-out motion determines the fluctuating distance between forces in combat. Why describe this fluctuating distance phenomenon as “in-and-out” versus a term like “close-and-far” or “short-and-long?”

To answer this question, it helps to understand how fights are structured.

There are three tactical phases to every engagement of force. There is the approach, the delivery, and the close.

In the first phase, the approach, an initiation actor takes position, enters in, and penetrates against the receiving actor’s defenses. This phase shrinks distance.

The second phase, the delivery, is when the primary battle between actors occurs. In this phase, the distance change is moderately static, and the bulk of the pressure and objective firepower is unleashed.

The third phase, the close, occurs after the barrage of firepower is exhausted. One of the actors clears out, resets, and repositions for the next potential attack. This phase increases distance. The three phases are repeated until there is a victor.

Notice the use of the words. The person initiating the assault “enters in.”

Once the attack is complete, an actor “clears out.”

Thus, the notion of breaking in and out starts to manifest.

As distance contracts and expands repeatedly, force engagements take on a breathing effect, like lungs — in-and-out motion.

To use a different analogy, imagine an asteroid headed toward Earth.

The moments leading up to the asteroid entering into the atmosphere is the approach.

During the approach, the distance between the asteroid and Earth decreases rapidly.

Supposing the asteroid successfully penetrates the Earth’s atmosphere entirely and impacts the planet’s surface, this, in turn, would be the delivery.

At the point of collision, the distance change between the asteroid and the Earth is relatively static compared to the approach.

The aftermath of the impact — the dust clearing out, the damage assessment, cleanup, and future collision prevention — would be the close.

During the close, the distance between the Earth’s surface and the remaining asteroid dust cloud clears out, dissipates, and floats away.

The motion of the asteroid hitting the Earth is an engagement of force having an “entering in” and “clearing out” process, not unlike a fist hitting the body.

The Quest for a Word

The search for a word to describe in-and-out motion between opposing forces has been quite vexing, like a pesky gnat buzzing in one’s ear.

The need to whack this little aggravator into extinction has become a necessity.

What is the word for breathing-like in-and-out motion? As it turns out, there is no word in the English language to describe this phenomenon.

Existing words such as “horizontal” and “reciprocal” have been considered, but they do not accurately capture the essence of this specific type of motion.

On the one hand, the word “horizontal” is too broad in scope and does not encompass the dynamic nature of in-and-out, expanding, and collapsing breathing-type actions.

Horizontal means any travel along a surface area — lateral, in and out, or otherwise.

On the other hand, the term “reciprocal” is too limited in scope, as it fails to convey the entire essence of this motion and implies a simple back-and-forth movement rather than the complex, variable nature of in-and-out motion.

To reciprocate means to give in return or to bear a sense of equality.

Some have suggested colorful phrases related to the art of lovemaking.

However, these terms are not applicable in the field of combat and don’t accurately convey the correct meaning of oppositional parties in battle.

The lack of descriptive words for seemingly fundamental characteristics of the material world is not as unusual a phenomenon as one would think.

William Gladstone, British Prime Minister of England, identified that the word blue was never referenced in ancient texts.

Mounting evidence indicates that our ancestors didn’t recognize the word even existed.

Such a fundamental color in nature: the color of the sky, oceans, and lakes; water which sustains all life; it had no word.

It is almost as if people just took its presence for granted.

Just as the lack of a term for blue led to difficulties in describing and understanding the world, the absence of a word for in-and-out motion in force engagements has hindered communication and comprehension in martial arts.

The Word “Accordial”

The term “Accordial” is put forward to address this linguistic gap.

This word was first proposed formally as a term for combat in 2021 in the book Strategic Engagement of Force, a Field Guide for the use of Martial Arts Strategy and Tactics.

It was inspired by the accordion, a musical instrument known for its in-and-out, expanding, and contracting motion.

Like an accordion, in-and-out motion in force engagements is variable, dynamic, and rhythmic.

Therefore, “accordial” is an apt term to describe this movement[1].

The accordion analogy helps to better understand the concept of in-and-out motion.

The primary function of an accordion is to produce sound by expanding and contracting distance between endpoints, similar to the movement in combat.

Force is required for both the in, a push, and the out, a pull.

Thus, “accordial” is an adjective to describe variable in-and-out motion, capturing the essence more accurately than existing terms in this domain.

How We Move

Within the material world, we can control our kinetic movement through three dimensions: height, depth, and width.

We can move up and down along the height dimension — vertical movement.

We can move left and right along the width dimension — lateral movement.

We can move in and out along the dimension of depth — accordial movement.

Of the three movement types, accordial is most fundamental in its relationship to fighting, as without penetration and clearing, there is no fight.

Accordial motion is the intercourse of combat.

What remains without combative intercourse is simply an athletic, expressive, interpretive dance.

This interpretive dance aspect of martial arts exists today and is known as kata. Kata is a non-combative domain of martial arts.

Accordial Fields of Engagement

Building on the concept of “accordial,” the idea of Accordial Fields of Engagement emerges.

These fields govern the in-and-out motion between opposing parties in force engagements and provide an actionable framework for understanding and applying this concept.

They have been alternately called Depth Fields of Engagement, as these govern the depth of combat between opponents.

There are three accordial fields of engagement across the dimension of depth between opposing parties: the fields of measure, attack, and flank.

Each represents a block of distance between adversaries when in a fight. The first field, the measure, is the most extended range and constitutes the area outside the reach of an opponent’s firepower within the field of vision.

The second field, the field of attack, resides in closer range of the opponent, within the reach of the opponent’s firepower, still within the field of vision.

The third field, the flank, is the negative space behind the opponent, also in the range of firepower but outside of the field of vision, allowing for a more advantageous attacking position.

These fields can be leveraged to assess advantages, risks, and odds of victory.

No different than the end zone on an NFL football field, fields of engagement provide us with the floor plan to design strategy and tactics and measure success.

Communicating successful fighting ideas has always been a struggle due to the lack of appropriate terminology.

However, with accordial fields of engagement, this communication becomes more effective and efficient — like lightening.

This concept enhances our understanding of in-and-out motion and opens new avenues for exploration and research into the realm of force engagements.

For more information and a deeper understanding of Fields of Engagement, please refer to the volume Strategic Engagement of Force, a Field Guide for use of Martial Arts Strategy and Tactics.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the need for a word to describe in-and-out motion in force engagements is evident.

Existing words like “horizontal” and “reciprocal” fail to capture the essence of this action.

The proposed term “accordial,” inspired by the accordion, accurately describes this variable, dynamic motion.

The introduction of accordial fields of engagement further enhances our understanding of this concept, paving the way for more effective communication and research in applying strategy and tactics in martial arts.

For the video versions of this article, please reference here:

https://x.com/force_strategic/status/1734696346588774672

https://youtu.be/gZQD9wjqfoM?si=_pkti8UIJxrYKsSr

References

[1] The term accordial was seemly used at some point in the Middle English era with the varied spelling of a single “C,” acordial, to describe a form of effective medicine, but it has been latent since. See accordial — accordial — Middle English Compendium (umich.edu). The musical instrument, the accordion, was not invented until the 1800’s in Germany, and the English word: “Accordion” is derived from the German word “Akkordion”. Thereby, the English meaning of the term shaped a shifted since its latent use if the 1400–1500’s.

In addition, the term “accordial” was tagged in the Urban Dictionary in 2020 with a similar inflection to its use here. See Urban Dictionary: accordial.

About the Author

Scott Gehring is a modern-day enlightenment warrior who delights in adventure, free-spiritedness, creativity, tinkering, travel, and an insatiable love for constructive conflict.

An acclaimed expert in multiple art styles, Scott, for over 35 years, has passionately pursued understanding, performance, health, discipline, truth, morality, and the purity of combat.