I don't doubt that it's an accurate translation (Griffith retired from the USMC and did a doctorate in chinese military history before[0] attempting it); I'm just curious[1] how various phrases from the translation were phrased in the original.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_B._Griffith#Post-retire...

[1] the only other chinese text I've looked closely at has been bits of the Mawangdui Tao Te Ching, and I'd guess using that as a reference style would be like attempting to write contemporary english based on the King James bible.

I might be misreading the signal in your messaging as of your frustration that 1938 text I posted ("//..banned-...") isn't the original source of Griffith translation

Here is the first para: "In a war of revolutionary character, guerrilla operations are a necessary part. This is particularly true in war waged for the emancipation of a people who inhabit a vast nation. China is such a nation, a nation whose techniques are undeveloped and whose communications are poor. She finds herself confronted with a strong and victorious Japanese imperialism. Under these circumstances, the development of the type of guerrilla warfare characterized by the quality of mass is both necessary and natural. This warfare must be developed to an unprecedented degree and it must co‑ordinate with the operations of our regular armies. If we fail to do this, we will find it difficult to defeat the enemy. "

"游击战争是一切带革命性的战争之必要的组成部分，尤其在广大领土上作战的民族解放战争，广泛的民众性的游击战争之发展是必要的与必然的。在领土广大、技术贫弱与交通不便的中国现存条件下，战胜强大的敌人一一日本帝国主义的正确方针，无疑应该是广泛地发展民众游击战争，使之与主要的正规战争相配合。不这样做，战胜敌人的自的是难于达到的。"

Okay you might rue that it isn't a scan, but I doubt the hanzi isn't a word for word transcription of the original. Unless.. you mean you want the traditional hanzi?

The one translation I find questionable is of the phrase 民众性 to "quality of mass", maybe appealing to Clausewitz?

EDIT: in fact if you click on 对比 you get scans of the original, but it crashed my mobile browser lol..

I'm ruing that we have 1938 in both languages, but 1937 only in english translation (although I have every reason to believe that translation has, when choosing between fidelity and beauty, opted for the former), and I don't believe 1937 and 1938 are the same composition (or at least if 1938 is an expanded 1937 it also clearly has deletions).

[traditional vs simplified is not an issue here, although I note that 丑 (note there are sibboleths even in the simplified strokes!) as simplified 醜 loses a potential flight of fancy: does the existence of unitary ghosts imply that subghosts and ghost-quotients are two different structures (in general: for abelian hauntings they coincide?), for the latter may be non-unital? This would have important repercussions for the kernels of mappings between ghosts...]

Hard to do this on a mobile phone so maybe point me to suspected insertions/deletions in the 1938 translation as you seem to already have a list of them.

<<Basic Tactics>> here's the very good candidate for the original https://www.marxists.org/chinese/maozedong/1968/1-095.htm

Re: unitary ghosts.. ask your friend who might be all aquiver? He might well be as coy as these creatures..

Lagniappe https://youtu.be/sBi2WSlg6ug

Someone, or, the One?