Old Fujianese Translations of Wing Chun Terms?

[Kevin Huang]

I'm Taiwanese, so I speak a variant of the old Fujian dialect.

Taiwanese is also known as "Fukienese", albeit with a slightly different pronunciation. It's very different in vocabulary and grammar from Mandarin or Cantonese.

Anyway, I have noticed that a lot of the old Wing Chun terms make perfect sense in Taiwanese. My Taiwanese is not complete, as I was never formally educated in that dialect but spoke it at home as my 1st language.

So if anybody can shed further linguistic examples, that would be greatly appreciated.

Here are some examples:

Pak Sao (Cantonese) = "Pah Tsao" (Taiwanese) = "hit away".

Tan Sao (Cantonese) = "Tun Tsao" (Taiwanese) = "Swallow away". Ngo Cho Kun (5 Ancestor Fist) uses this exact same terminology for Tan Sao.

Bong Sao (Cantonese) = "Pong Tsao" (Taiwanese) = "carry away" (as in to lift a big pot away).

Kiu Sao (Cantonese) = "Kiu Tsao" (Taiwanese), which translates into "pull away".

Huen Sao (Cantonese) = "Tng Tsao" (Taiwanese) = "turn away"


Si Lim Tao (Cantonese) = "Siu Lum Tao" (Taiwanese) = "Shaolin Thought"

Chum Kiu (Cantonese) = "Cham Chiu" (Taiwanese) = "Spear Hand"

Biu Jee (Cantonese) = "Byang Kee" (Taiwanese) = "Exploding Finger"

[KPM]

Thanks for the post Kevin! I have always understood "Sao" to mean "hand" or "arm." You seem to be saying in Taiwanese the term translates as "away"? Or are you just dropping the "Sao" part....."hit away" instead of "hit away hand"?

[Kevin Huang]

Thanks for the acknowledgement, KPM.

In Taiwanese, the word "tsao" means "to run" as in "run away". So if I was yelling at you to run away from a fire, I'd shout "Tsao!"

Taiwanese is a very open ended language where the same word can have multiple meanings. "Pah Tsao" (Pak Sao) literally translates to "to hit away", and that's it. It doesn't directly translate into "hit away with hand".

On a deeper level, the term can be read to mean all sorts of different things. That's how the old Fujian dialect works, and that's how the Wing Chun kung fu of that dialect works as well.

One of the reasons I started translating the Wing Chun terms is because Yip Man, Yuen Kay San, and several other historic Wing Chun masters were from Fujian province. In the old days, it would be highly likely that they spoke Fujianese as their native dialect and not the more modern Cantonese.

To me, it's hardly surprising that Wing Chun has old Fujianese terminology that translates so well.

[Zhang Yong Chun]

Great post, Kevin...

[Kevin Huang]

Thanks, Zhang Yong Chun.

Here's another one:

Biu Jee (Cantonese) = "Byang JEE" (Taiwanese) = Explode Tongue.

From a Fujianese speaker's perspective, "Explode Tongue" can mean many things. In my case, I'm thinking of soft graceful movement that has explosive power. Sort of like Hung Ga's "tiet sin" = "tee swhaa" = Iron Thread".

My Fujianese is incomplete, so there are a lot of Wing Chun terms that I cannot translate. For all I know, "Biu" might mean something totally different from what I've written here.

[Phil Redmond]

I'm Taiwanese, so I speak a variant of the old Fujian dialect.

Taiwanese is also known as "Fukienese", albeit with a slightly different pronunciation. It's very different in vocabulary and grammar from Mandarin or Cantonese.

Anyway, I have noticed that a lot of the old Wing Chun terms make perfect sense in Taiwanese. My Taiwanese is not complete, as I was never formally educated in that dialect but spoke it at home as my 1st language.

So if anybody can shed further linguistic examples, that would be greatly appreciated.

Here are some examples:

Pak Sao (Cantonese) = "Pah Tsao" (Taiwanese) = "hit away".

Tan Sao (Cantonese) = "Tun Tsao" (Taiwanese) = "Swallow away". Ngo Cho Kun (5 Ancestor Fist) uses this exact same terminology for Tan Sao.

Bong Sao (Cantonese) = "Pong Tsao" (Taiwanese) = "carry away" (as in to lift a big pot away).

Kiu Sao (Cantonese) = "Kiu Tsao" (Taiwanese), which translates into "pull away".

Huen Sao (Cantonese) = "Tng Tsao" (Taiwanese) = "turn away"


Si Lim Tao (Cantonese) = "Siu Lum Tao" (Taiwanese) = "Shaolin Thought"

Chum Kiu (Cantonese) = "Cham Chiu" (Taiwanese) = "Spear Hand"

Biu Jee (Cantonese) = "Byang Kee" (Taiwanese) = "Exploding Finger"

Based on the Chinese characters and not a specicfic dialect
Pak Sao (Cantonese) = slapping hand

Tan Sao (Cantonese) = dispersing/spreading hand

Bong Sao (Cantonese) = wing hand/arm

Kiu Sao (Cantonese) = bridging hand

Huen Sao (Cantonese) = circling hand


Siu Lim Tao (Cantonese) = small thought/idea head
(it's not the same characters as for Siu Lum/Shaolin

Chum Kiu (Cantonese) = depending on the character it can be searching bridge or sinking bridge

Biu Jee (Cantonese) = darting fingers.
I'll ask my Mandarin teacher for the Mandarin translations.
Here are some of the Chinese characters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Chun_terms

[Kevin Huang]

Good going, Phil Redmond.

I only wish to point out that literacy in Fujian is a fairly modern thing. I do consider the modern Chinese characters 100% valid as one specific view.

Besides, the plethora of dialects from locale to locale resulted in wildly different pronunciations. For example, I can barely understand the Taiwanese spoken in North Taiwan because I'm from the South. When I speak to somebody who speaks Fujianese, it's almost speaking to somebody from a completely different language. It's no different in reading, either.

In China, there's rarely just one way to do or interpret anything. That REALLY holds true in language, particularly in terms of kung fu.

[Phil Redmond]

I speak Cantonese and I'm learning Mandarin now. One thing that is constant are the characters. I've asked my Mandarin teacher to translate the Wing Chun terms into English and they come out the same. Though he can't speak Cantonese he still come to the same conclusions with regards to the terms in Cantonese.

[David Peterson]

Sorry Kevin, but I'm going to have to agree 100% with Phil on this one - these terms are NOT up for discussion because we are talking about the WRITTEN language, not a dialectical variation of pronunciation. I am a speaker of Mandarin AND Cantonese, not only reading and writing the language, but teaching it too. I too can't speak much Fujianese/Taiwanhua, but give me a pen and paper and I can have a conversation with just about anyone, regardless of dialect. Why? Because the written character is consistent across ALL dialects (...yes, I know that there is a written form of some dialects - I read written Cantonese too - but while the characters used may vary [eg: 'kan' in Mandarin/ 'tai' in Cantonese], the meanings do NOT) and so what you are saying is just NOT possible linguistically.
DMP

[Phil Redmond]

Sorry Kevin, but I'm going to have to agree 100% with Phil on this one - these terms are NOT up for discussion because we are talking about the WRITTEN language, not a dialectical variation of pronunciation. I am a speaker of Mandarin AND Cantonese, not only reading and writing the language, but teaching it too. I too can't speak much Fujianese/Taiwanhua, but give me a pen and paper and I can have a conversation with just about anyone, regardless of dialect. Why? Because the written character is consistent across ALL dialects (...yes, I know that there is a written form of some dialects - I read written Cantonese too - but while the characters used may vary [eg: 'kan' in Mandarin/ 'tai' in Cantonese], the meanings do NOT) and so what you are saying is just NOT possible linguistically.
DMP

Wow David, I am so impressed that you can read and write. I'm illiterate in Chinese. My Mandarin teacher insists that we learn to read or he won't teach us. I just remembered that my first Cantonese reader used some characters specific to Cantonese. Like the characters, for keuih (ta), and m (bu). You've inspired me to study harder.
Phil

[LoneTiger108]

Sorry Kevin, but I'm going to have to agree 100% with Phil on this one - these terms are NOT up for discussion because we are talking about the WRITTEN language, not a dialectical variation of pronunciation...

I'm thankful to Phil and yourself Dave for putting this thread in some sort of order, as I tend not to be heard at all when it comes to talk of actual 'written language'. I'm by far fluent in either Cantonese or Mandarin but I understand the importance of curriculums and traditional teachings within the Wing Chun I learnt at least.

Kevin, you mention that 'literacy in Fujian is a modern thing', but you must understand that the late Ip Man was NOT illiterate. I think even if you research heavily you may find it hard to clarify ANYTHING in Wing Chun before Ip Mans influence as many taught verbally only. This is because he was a scholar and he brought the curriculums and terminologies into the open.

There is a stark difference between what some refer to as 'Weng Chun' and 'Wing Chun'. One is verbal transmission and one is written and verbal transmission. The characters for Weng & Wing are different.

The 'Weng Chun Tong' in Shaolin was known for it's mantras more than it's Martial Arts, and these mantras were NEVER written down!

Obviously this can lead to all types of confusion, hence the massive importance of Ip Mans influence before the knowledge spread to the West.

[WingChunWay]

I'm Taiwanese, so I speak a variant of the old Fujian dialect.

Taiwanese is also known as "Fukienese", albeit with a slightly different pronunciation. It's very different in vocabulary and grammar from Mandarin or Cantonese.

Anyway, I have noticed that a lot of the old Wing Chun terms make perfect sense in Taiwanese. My Taiwanese is not complete, as I was never formally educated in that dialect but spoke it at home as my 1st language.

So if anybody can shed further linguistic examples, that would be greatly appreciated.

Here are some examples:

Pak Sao (Cantonese) = "Pah Tsao" (Taiwanese) = "hit away".

Tan Sao (Cantonese) = "Tun Tsao" (Taiwanese) = "Swallow away". Ngo Cho Kun (5 Ancestor Fist) uses this exact same terminology for Tan Sao.

Bong Sao (Cantonese) = "Pong Tsao" (Taiwanese) = "carry away" (as in to lift a big pot away).

Kiu Sao (Cantonese) = "Kiu Tsao" (Taiwanese), which translates into "pull away".

Huen Sao (Cantonese) = "Tng Tsao" (Taiwanese) = "turn away"


Si Lim Tao (Cantonese) = "Siu Lum Tao" (Taiwanese) = "Shaolin Thought"

Chum Kiu (Cantonese) = "Cham Chiu" (Taiwanese) = "Spear Hand"

Biu Jee (Cantonese) = "Byang Kee" (Taiwanese) = "Exploding Finger"

Hi Kevin,
I enjoyed your post, it made me step out of the box for bit there.
A question that I would like to pose to the list is, was there a written record of the techniques of Wing Chun before Yip Man? Was he the one who chose the selection of characters? Or did the selected characters for Wing Chun techniques predate Yip Man? Are there different character in different lineages for the same techniques?
Just a few unanswered thoughts.
Mark

[k gledhill]

I did a cantonese course for a while and found it suprisingly easy to read and write, the 'spoken' cantonese was the hard part for me raising this lowering that ...the use of characters to imply scenarios was funny , tsai man jai [ spelling] mosquitos buzzing around , was used to refer to kids 'playing [ buzzing ] around' ...or the character/s for woman, multiplied to 2 a conversation, 3 was trouble,... I may be wrong.
I did this while living in my basement school in Mott st. in NYC . Sadly my teacher left the language school and so did my urge to speak like tarzan ....My old sifu V. Kans way of describing cantonese was , "you speak like Tarzan" , me hungry , me eat , you go ...
As for Kevins thread, its good input, the hand has nothing to do with tan 'sao' , ....certain key knowledge must be understood to make the system become alive, otherwise you get locked into the 'mainstream' understanding ...of spread and hit etc robotic vt....tan sao / spread and hit , this can be one arm doing 2 actions.
What spreads off the line if the same hand is still on the line hitting ? the elbow, not the hand leaving....the elbow returns to the line and leaves each time to knock 'away' another arm from the outside flanks...sure it can be used as a line leaving hand chaser too...
Tan sao used to mean [to me ] what most think, it was a line leaving hand chasing block up in the air...Then I met Philipp Bayer who explained WSL training with it ...

strike an arm away, using a strike.

[couch]

Tan sao used to mean [to me ] what most think, it was a line leaving hand chasing block up in the air...Then I met Philipp Bayer who explained WSL training with it ...

strike an arm away, using a strike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG96eyig5dI

Would you say that at 0:55, this is what is being said here about the Tan Sau? That it is attacking a strike? Or are you talking about "the hand that blocks is that hand that hits?"

[k gledhill]

not the same , that is a use with a tan still on your line ...the striking aspect is that the tan is taking the line of force away , left or right , depending on your attacking line/s, while striking with the same hand in one smooth delivery.....punch.

Make your arm into a tan sao aiming at your partners head then punch him with the same hand fast and bring back the elbow to your centerline ...the elbow flies off the line .
Now get them to place an arm out [for reference only] 1/2 extended , move so your at angle of about 45 degrees,[ for this example stand to their right using your right tan] so your centerline is facing theirs , their other arm shouldnt be able to reach you unless they turn to face you..... and close enought to strike when extended...you should X over the arm of the partner who is just giving you a similar 'dummy' arm...dont think of the tan as a static pose , just a training aid to develop the punch...now strike doing the same tan strike making a fist ...the partners arm is moved sideways by the force of the tan elbow leaving your centerline, BUT you are striking him directly forwards along the same line with your fist...

to follow an attacking intent ..you can shut off that same arm by now delivering the jumming follow strike ...
iow as the spent tan is coming back to vu sao, the jum is striking in while keeping the partners arm to the same side the tan moved it off the line ...by striking using the inwards force of the forearm/elbow ...

simple line strikes.

remember your attacking the guy not waiting for him to attack you and use a fancy move...just attack, but not down the center if they are waiting for you....

The nature of the strikes further builds the , pak , jut, bong huens, as line clearing actions for the vu strikes....either jum or tan can become the required 'clearer' depending on what they meet along the line THEY are striking on....

Dan chi-sao isnt wrist movements etc..or fook bs...it is alignment drills for your partner to do a tan then strike , you jum then strike, he bongs to deflect sideways...you recover your strike over the bong by doing fook , recover the neutral elbow, with no jum or tan intent yet...just recover back to see what side the strike needs to use maintenance force on.

once the strikes are developed in dan chi the dan chi becomes redundant becasue we will only fight using a 1 beat strike with 2 actions developed in dan chi....not feeling for feeling sake, but to hold the lines of deflection before striking ...removing the tendency to move the wrists or drop the hands to block before striking, thus taking the gun off the target ...like training to shoot by dropping the barrel to block a bullet, instead of maneuvering for cover while holding the target and firing as they fire at you, only your off the firing line while firing .

The jum keeps the arm along the line with the elbow in, while striking out.
Together they make the basic line attack ..tan offline elbow , jum online elbow, repeat either side seamlessly. Because the strikes dont waver off-line the tan action of the elbows leaving and returning to the line act to deliver the 2 forces per strike. Same as Jum inward force , same force as pak sao, lateral, relative to the outward striking action....once we are striking the targets the elbows dont matter . They , by design, cycle to man sao , vu sao, so neither is ever stopped from striking from the rear.
Because they fire on the line AND deflect in the strike action on the same line we dont need to think about chasing off-line, just hit until the arm is stopped X by interception, grabbing etc... no thinking attack , from a forwards intent , delivering an attacking momentum with 2 free hands both aimed to hit 1st, not chase and hit, chase and hit, trap and hit ...that is taking the very basic 'edge' of naturally fighting with 2 hands like any good boxer . thai boxer..etc...Vt is stifling itself by over 'applicating' instead of very effective simple striking attacks with double edged strikes.

Because the chi-sao is done [incorrectly] with wrists and feeling as the focus, the development of a 2 edged strike is simply 'lost' to a jum 1-2 a tan in the air and another arm punches...to function this is done inside the 2 attackers arms, already a bad place to wait to 'perform'....what are you waiting in the center for ? you give the attacker the ability to throw flanking shots at YOU....

Freedom to move around and feint shift , turn , relative to an attackers actions , frees us from the constraints of waiting for a 'application' from gate a with tan sao block B adopting a lead leg not good.
Remember that your training WITH each other for a common goal to fight those who dont know your moves or tactics. Not trying to feel each others wrists for openings 'wristing' is a bad word in our vt vocabulary.
Subtle change of how to see the system with profoundly different fighters ...

lost in translation

As my coach tells me , "WSL had many visitors , but few students"