Old Fujianese Translations of Wing Chun Terms?

[Kevin Huang]

Ah, good to see you again joy.

And yes, my chit chat IS "mostly superficial" - nothing to get worked up about.

Thanks for the opinions, guys. I was merely making a suggestion based on the culture that I was raised in, not trying to prove anything.

I'm not the greatest Taiwanese speaker, but I'm fluent enough to be able to translate what I hear. If I'm able to translate some of these terms (right or wrong), rest assured that other Fujianese can as well.

[David Peterson]

Interesting that the meanings are nearly the same, some dont quite work out though. Some actually make a bit more sense.
Hi David, this is benny, Bill dowding's student from newcastle. Didn't know you posted here. I was just discussing the stepping exercise you showed at the border incident to teach the step back to absorbe too much force. Didnt really describe it well you may want to have a look. I saw the shorts of the seminar video's, they look very good, I was going to buy the bundle as the book you signed for me got wet in the floods we had here, but ill have to wait to get the money.
See ya

Hi Benny,
I post here from time to time, ...when time allows or I feel that I can make a difference
Sorry to hear that you were caught up in the floods, ...have you been able to recover okay from that?
I'll try to take a look at what you posted re the footwork drills, however I'm sure that you've described it okay. Glad that you find the concept worth sharing
Very soon I'll be publishing a second (expanded) edition of the book - working on the last few details of the layout right now - so you might like to wait to purchase a copy of that version. All the originals are out-of-print now (have been for more than six years) and the "facsimile" copies that have been floating about are not really of a good quality - the new version has much more to read and loads of previously unpublished photos so I think you'll like it. You shouldn't have to wait too long - keep an eye on my website (or CranesProduction.com) for details.
Hope we can catch up again one of these days
DMP

[Lee Chiang Po]

Here in the USA, Asian peoples tend to migrate to areas of cities where people of their culture tend to huddle. Little Asia, China Town, Little Hong Kong. Younger brother to King Kong. Just about every known dialect will be spoken there and the young people that actually pick up the languages tend to speak a ****genous version of Chinese. Few can enterprit the characters, and of those that can, you will not ever get a clear interpretation. Certainly not exactly the same from just about anyone. They are too broad or general in their interpretation to give you any kind of direct meaning. If you are a student of the Chinese you will be the only one on the block, and no one will be able to figure out what you are talking about.
So, I have no interest in being fluent in Chinese since I have so little use for it. And in teaching any art or skill, learning the language just complicates it more. Especially when it don't seem to make any sense. I can straight punch as hard as I can jik chung. And I wouldn't have to keep explaining what I was saying.

[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"

[chusauli]

Kevin,

If you try to guess from phoentic sounds you will end up with the confusion you have demonstrated. Its a simple mistake.

Because I speak the Mandarin and Cantonese dialects and occasionally a variant of Shanghainese, we always have to go with the characters. Funny thing is having a conversation with people who speak multiple dialects is you can always have confusion and misunderstanding. Your interpretations certainly were quite amusing!

David Peterson's Mandarin is great! His Cantonese is also very good!

Phil's Cantonese is great!

For you linguists - which Chung (Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung) do you use? Flood or thrust?

Best regards,

[CFT]

For you linguists - which Chung (Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung) do you use? Flood or thrust?

That is an interesting question. I had always assumed the 'chung' used in the idiom was the same as that used in the sun character punch (yat ji chung choi), but flood seems to make sense too.

Thrust (衝): http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexi...h.php?q=%BD%C4

Flush/wash away (沖): http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexi...rch.php?q=%A8R

[k gledhill]

Kevin,

If you try to guess from phoentic sounds you will end up with the confusion you have demonstrated. Its a simple mistake.

Because I speak the Mandarin and Cantonese dialects and occasionally a variant of Shanghainese, we always have to go with the characters. Funny thing is having a conversation with people who speak multiple dialects is you can always have confusion and misunderstanding. Your interpretations certainly were quite amusing!

David Peterson's Mandarin is great! His Cantonese is also very good!

Phil's Cantonese is great!

For you linguists - which Chung (Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung) do you use? Flood or thrust?

Best regards,

which confusion are you confused with ?

[CFT]

which confusion are you confused with ?

I think you think he is confusing Kevin Huang with Kevin Gledhill.

Confused? You will be in the next episode of ... Wacky Wing Chun Races.

[k gledhill]

I think you think he is confusing Kevin Huang with Kevin Gledhill.

Confused? You will be in the next episode of ... Wacky Wing Chun Races.

thanks that was confusing

[Phil Redmond]

For you linguists - which Chung (Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung) do you use? Flood or thrust?

Best regards,

Hi Roberts, good question. I'd need to see the character for "chung". I tried a brief online search but couldn't find it. Do you know of an online source?
PR

[CFT]

Hi Roberts, good question. I'd need to see the character for "chung". I tried a brief online search but couldn't find it. Do you know of an online source?
PR

Phil, back up a few posts, before my silly one to Kevin.

[chusauli]

Hi Phil!

Yes, back up a few posts and you will see the 2 characters there! Courtesy of CFT!

By the way, the implication is not quite the same. One is thrusting - perhaps just moving the arm or striking. The 2nd character implies bowling down the opponent. Which one is correct? (I already know the answer...)

Its good food for thought...

Best regards,