Differing terminology

[mook jong man]

I read somewhere that Tsui Seung Tin was asked why there were so many differences in terminology for common moves amongst the various clans .

He said it was because Yip Man had only official names for three moves and they were tan sau , bong sau , and fook sau and all the rest of the stuff was named by various other people.

Now i don't know if it is true or not but it sure would explain a lot because everyone seems to have tan , bong and fook but all the other moves can differ broadly in the names that are used to describe them.

 

[martyg]

Its an interesting, if not Yip-centric response. The problem is that it would require all wing chun to have come through Yip Man for it to be true, which it does not. Unless by "various clans" you mean strictly those under Yip Man and meant "Why do Yip Man's students have so many differences in terminology?"

The interesting thing is that even his mainland people had more common "Dramatic" martial art terminology for their motions, than the simplified ones he later used in Hong Kong.

 

[geezer]

Its an interesting, if not Yip-centric response. The problem is that it would require all wing chun to have come through Yip Man for it to be true, which it does not. Unless by "various clans" you mean strictly those under Yip Man and meant "Why do Yip Man's students have so many differences in terminology?"

The interesting thing is that even his mainland people had more common "Dramatic" martial art terminology for their motions, than the simplified ones he later used in Hong Kong.

This confusion over names, especially for those of us that do not speak Cantonese, can make it really tough to discuss technique on a forum like this. Even within closely related lineages, there are differences in terminology. Sometimes it's just a matter of translation or spelling. Other times, completely different terms may be used for the same techniques, and conversely, the same terms for different techniques. And, to top it off, my old sifu pointed out that sometimes the different Chinese characters used are pronounced so similarly that even Cantonese speakers confuse them. That's why I prefer to use very simple, descriptive terms... in English , except for the most common, foundation techniques. I find this totally consistent with WC/WTs emphasis on simplicity.

 

[martyg]

This confusion over names, especially for those of us that do not speak Cantonese, can make it really tough to discuss technique on a forum like this. Even within closely related lineages, there are differences in terminology. Sometimes it's just a matter of translation or spelling. Other times, completely different terms may be used for the same techniques, and conversely, the same terms for different techniques.

Agree wholeheartedly.

And, to top it off, my old sifu pointed out that sometimes the different Chinese characters used are pronounced so similarly that even Cantonese speakers confuse them.

Yes, for example the characters for Weng and Wing are pronounced the same, which has lead to much confusion over the years. The English differentiation (even though they phonetically are pronouced the same) was created to denote a differene in Chinese characters.

And also, don't forget there's multiple dialects of Cantonese - with guangzhou, taishan (which is where the phonetic spelling of Ving Tsun comes from), Gaoyang, and Nanning. And even then, those sub dialects can have their own sub dialects.

That's why I prefer to use very simple, descriptive terms... in English , except for the most common, foundation techniques. I find this totally consistent with WC/WTs emphasis on simplicity.

As long as the terms stay truthful to the concept they're meant to imply (impart), I don't think its a big problem. The problem is though that English slang was often substituted for actual translation. The oft repeated "translation" of Tan Sao as "palm up block" comes to mind.