Our style in Korean or English?

[MBuzzy]

The Okinawans took Chinese terms and pronounced them in their own language.

The Japanese took Okinawan terms and pronounced them in their own language.

The Koreans took Japanese terms and pronounced them in their own language.

Where are you from?

So in your opinion, what is the solution - or at least preferred scenario? I don't see a way to completely eliminate a culture's influence on pronunciation and the language, but personally, I think we should try a little harder to say it right. But then....which one is right? How far back do you go?

 

[Errant108]

So in your opinion, what is the solution - or at least preferred scenario? I don't see a way to completely eliminate a culture's influence on pronunciation and the language, but personally, I think we should try a little harder to say it right. But then....which one is right? How far back do you go?

Don't halfass anything. Either go English, or go Korean.

 

[Makalakumu]

The ironic part of this discussion, IMHO, is that half of the techniques that we butcher the korean pronounciation on are not even labeled correctly in the first place. A low block is not a low block. I high block is not a high block. That doesn't change whether you use english, japanese, korean or klingon.

 

[DMcHenry]

I teach both English & Korean. I feel it's just a part of the overall KMA education. If you then ever go to Korea to train or are around Korean Masters, there will be a common lingo. I also like learning what I can about the Korean language and culture.

Mac

 

[Errant108]

The ironic part of this discussion, IMHO, is that half of the techniques that we butcher the korean pronounciation on are not even labeled correctly in the first place. A low block is not a low block. I high block is not a high block. That doesn't change whether you use english, japanese, korean or klingon.

Bingo. 受 is not 막기. 引手 is not chambering.

 

[DMcHenry]

You have to agree to call it something. If our Korean instructors told us that's what they are called, then no problems calling it that for me. Sure you can use the techniques for more than a "low block" or "high block", but they can also be used as a block.

Ask any of my students - is a 'low block' a block, strike, take down, joint lock, wrist release, etc. their answer would be a simple "yes". As long as you understand that, no problems, but you have to put a term to that technique. If you follow in the footsteps of the founder and flow from his lineage, then a low block is called a "ha-dan mahkee". The rest is semantics. A block is a block if you use it as such. If I use the high block motion as a choking technique or a forearm strike, then it's no longer a "high block". But I may still call it a sang-dan mahkee in Korean.

Mac

 

[Errant108]

You have to agree to call it something. If our Korean instructors told us that's what they are called, then no problems calling it that for me. Sure you can use the techniques for more than a "low block" or "high block", but they can also be used as a block.

Ask any of my students - is a 'low block' a block, strike, take down, joint lock, wrist release, etc. their answer would be a simple "yes". As long as you understand that, no problems, but you have to put a term to that technique. If you follow in the footsteps of the founder and flow from his lineage, then a low block is called a "ha-dan mahkee". The rest is semantics. A block is a block if you use it as such. If I use the high block motion as a choking technique or a forearm strike, then it's no longer a "high block". But I may still call it a sang-dan mahkee in Korean.

Mac

If the founder was wrong, because he 1) didn't have the complete understanding of what the technique was, and 2) didn't know the original term anyway, why does a modern practitioner have to continue the misunderstanding?

 

[DMcHenry]

If the founder was wrong, because he 1) didn't have the complete understanding of what the technique was, and 2) didn't know the original term anyway, why does a modern practitioner have to continue the misunderstanding?

If you believe that, then don't follow the style. Personally, I agree and teach my students to look beyond the obvious terms and interpratations. I haven't trained in only one style or just one instructor, so I have a very open view on things. It's good that you question - too many don't. I tell my students to not believe (blindly) anything I say at all, but to look it up and research it themselves. I would hate to create a bunch of robots or little "mini-me's" who can't think for themselves.

What would you call that technique that everyone can understand what technique you are talking about if not "down block" for example? In all the Korean and Japanese arts I've trained in, everyone called it the same, down block in English. How you can apply that techniqe can be very different and is what makes study of the arts so interesting, but it's called that term and we all know what you mean.

If you start to change the basic techniques, terms, etc. of the art then you no longer have TSD, but something else. Since my way is pretty standard but I have my own view/interpratation/flavor and ideas on ways things should be done, I came up with my own school name (Sungshil Kwan TangSooDo) to represent my way. I just see it as a name to put with a particular technique, how it is used is what I work on with my students. I can't change what those before me pretty universally decided on what label to put with each technique, but I can help my students past the most base understanding of them.

BTW, what do you call your "down/low section block" if not down block or hadan mahkee?

Mac

 

[Errant108]

If you believe that, then don't follow the style.

Why?

What would you call that technique that everyone can understand what technique you are talking about if not "down block" for example?

I don't talk about down block.

In all the Korean and Japanese arts I've trained in, everyone called it the same, down block in English.

That doesn't mean they were right, or knew what they were talking about as far as the linguistic implications of the terms they were using. The original term for that motion does not mean "low block", and was mistranslated as "low block". This has lead to an improper, and limited understanding of the art.

How you can apply that techniqe can be very different and is what makes study of the arts so interesting, but it's called that term and we all know what you mean.

It's a term that promotes an incorrect and limited understanding of the technique.

If you start to change the basic techniques, terms, etc. of the art then you no longer have TSD, but something else.

I completely reject that mentality, and view it as part of the problem, not the solution, and if anything, researching linguistics and history has taught me that much of what is taught today as Dangsudo is not Dangsudo, or at least, is only the surface level of Dangsudo, and in order to penetrate to the real heart of Dangsudo, you have to let go of those things that keep you from a complete view of Dangsudo. Improper terminology, brought about by misunderstandings and mistranslation, is one of those things.

Dangsudo is not some accumulation of external "flavors".

BTW, what do you call your "down/low section block" if not down block or hadan mahkee?

Mac

There's no such thing as low block in my system.

 

[Makalakumu]

Yeah, I guess that really reframes the question doesn't it? Low blocks are not low blocks. High blocks are not high blocks. I've got a real problem with this terminology because I really feel that even using perpetrates a misunderstanding of what is actually being done. Think of a beginning student, the first impression they get of a technique is the name they hear. If its incorrect, the teacher just did a disservice to that student. They put up a block towards understanding.

I really feel that we need to let go of this terminology. That we need to let go of the way we practice the terminology. It's one in the same and I don't think they can ever be totally separated.

I, personally, had a hard time discarding this because I didn't know what to call certain moves any more. I just started saying, "here, do this," and the student was like, "whats that?" and then I showed them a couple of things it could be and my student was like, "oh yeah, that makes sense."

The end result is that I think we all gained a clearer understanding of what Tang Soo Do was all about. It was hard at first, but we figured it out and now it works great!

 

[DMcHenry]

I take it you are not a TangSooDo/DangSuDo practitioner?

“It's only called that term by roundeyes who can't read Hanja.”

That’s an interesting point of view, and one I’m sure all the non ”roundeyes” would find interesting.

Hadansu makes sense. I’ve thought about updating terms myself before, but the accepted ones are already in wide use and understanding. Being a roundeye and no able to read Hanja, I’ll stick with the traditional misused terms.

Mac

 

[Errant108]

I take it you are not a TangSooDo/DangSuDo practitioner?

Why would you say that?

 

[MBuzzy]

The biggest problem is that we have to have something to call it - at least in the traditional style of practicing and learning TSD in a class setting. Unless you reformulate how you do basics completely....But then, that leads to a whole new question of what really are basics and if we are doing them correctly to begin with.

So if we do have to call them something...what do we use? If even the Korean is a mistranslation, how far back do you go - and then does is it still a KMA?

I do agree with Errant that it should be one or the other, Korean or English. Although when you try to go all Korean, students will WANT the translation and it eventually comes back to the same problem. Also if you go solely Korean, you run into the pronunciation issues and differences in American pronunciations from Korean, so you hit another wall and you're back to where we are now.

 

[Errant108]

So if we do have to call them something...what do we use? If even the Korean is a mistranslation, how far back do you go - and then does is it still a KMA?

The problem is not mistranslation. It's mis-naming.

Allow me to explain.

Imagine you were learning boxing. But you never actually got in the ring and boxed. You learn that boxing is a method of grabbing and wrestling. Your teacher gave you sets of combos. There's one motion that he calls "front hand grab and push". You practice this motion over and over and over again. Then you get with your partner, and you grab his shoulder and push. It kind of works, but not really. Those guys who practice wrestling seem to do it a bit better than you, but you know you're doing it right, because your teacher taught you "front hand grab and push", like his teacher taught him "front hand grab and push", like the founder of your system of boxing named it. He learned it from those foreigners, who learned it from another nation they had conquered.

Then one day, someone comes along and says that in the original language of the conquered people "front hand grab and push" is actually called a "jab". Jab means you slam your front fist into someone's body, and combo it up with other movements.

But you'd rather call it "front hand grab and push", because that's what your style is. That what you learned in your flow. After all, if you changed it, it would be like your teacher's, or like his "ethnicity", or like the ethnicity of the people who practiced it before that, or those before that.

 

[Makalakumu]

Mistranslation and misnaming, it's all wrapped up in the same mess and I think that MBuzzy really illustrated the point that I have been trying to make. The way we practice basics is wrong. And the lexicon we use to describe basics is wrong. You can't practice basics right and use the old lexicon and vice versa. It's all gotta change or it never will make any sense. The boxing analogy is brilliant.

 

[JWLuiza]

The problem is not mistranslation. It's mis-naming.

Allow me to explain.

Imagine you were learning boxing. But you never actually got in the ring and boxed. You learn that boxing is a method of grabbing and wrestling. Your teacher gave you sets of combos. There's one motion that he calls "front hand grab and push". You practice this motion over and over and over again. Then you get with your partner, and you grab his shoulder and push. It kind of works, but not really. Those guys who practice wrestling seem to do it a bit better than you, but you know you're doing it right, because your teacher taught you "front hand grab and push", like his teacher taught him "front hand grab and push", like the founder of your system of boxing named it. He learned it from those foreigners, who learned it from another nation they had conquered.

Then one day, someone comes along and says that in the original language of the conquered people "front hand grab and push" is actually called a "jab". Jab means you slam your front fist into someone's body, and combo it up with other movements.

But you'd rather call it "front hand grab and push", because that's what your style is. That what you learned in your flow. After all, if you changed it, it would be like your teacher's, or like his "ethnicity", or like the ethnicity of the people who practiced it before that, or those before that.

I see what you did there.

 

[JT_the_Ninja]

As a linguistics major, may I step in here on the semantics note?

My personal belief, and here I draw from both John Stuart Mill and Ferdiand de Saussure, is that a name is just a placeholder, for the most part. We encounter an object, or an event, or any other thing your English grammar teacher would have you classify as a noun, and we come up with a name for it. At first, it may be very much a description of the thing (onomatopoeia is helpful), or it may just be general (anyone know why a horse is called a horse?). We connect a certain sequence of sound vibrations with an idea, and now that sound sequence, which may eventually become a visual phenomenon known as a written word, can call up that concept in our minds whenever we encounter it or use it. Eventually, it must be said that it is not the nature of the sign that makes it have meaning for us, but rather the connection we make between it and the concept we mean it to represent.

I like the example of the perplexed boxing student and his "front hand grab and push" (although the idea's a bit of a stretch, because jabbing is fairly natural - it's part of the curriculum at my school), but let me offer you another story, one that is oft repeated among language philosophers but one which I can, for that very reason, adapt for purposes here:

The ancient Greeks knew of two particular stars, Hesperos and Phosphoros. Hesperos, when it appeared, was always the sky with the setting sun, and Phosphoros always appeared just before the sun rose in the morning - hence the names Evening Star and Morning Star (a few may know where I'm going already). The Babylonians, centuries before, had this crazy idea that the two were the same, but the Greeks didn't care about ancient ideas. For them, they were two different things. Of course, nowadays, we know that Hesperos is the planet Venus, and we know that Phosphoros is...the planet Venus. They're the same thing. So the Greeks had two names for the same thing? Weird. But they didn't think of it that way. They had two concepts in their mind, and they came up with names for them.

Now replace Hesperos with "front hand grab and push" and Phosphoros with "jab."

So, when we refer to Venus, we're referring to what, to those ever-wise Greeks, were two different concepts. When I refer to hadan mahkee, I'm referring to what, given different circumstances, might actualize as a number of different painful experiences for my opponent.

Which is why we call it hadan mahkee. See my point about why I like a standardized vocabulary upon which we can all agree? When I learned that move, I didn't learn to call it low block first. The first words out of my instructor's mouth were "hadan mahkee," and then he showed me how to do the move. He told me that the English was "low block," so I'd have a handy frame of reference (a basic, surface interpretation of the move is a deflecting block that goes low), but as I learned more, I found out the various other ways that same technique could be applied. (This is why we don't tell orange belts that now they know how to kick someone's butt.)

So really, saying that it creates a "stumbling block" to learning is doing a disservice. The instructor has a responsibility to impart what he knows, and the student has a responsibility to take that and grasp it, learn it, internalize it, and use it to enhance his or her own learning -- and to wait until the teacher says he's ready to take the next step on his own. This is the kind of thing that separates the good student from the not-so-good. Those who want to know will seek after that knowledge. Piling it on only gives you a student who knows (or thinks he knows) more than he can use.

Anyway, just had to get that out. You bring up semantics around a linguist, prepare for a lesson

Tang Soo!

 

[Errant108]

As a linguistics major, may I step in here on the semantics note?

Certainly. Though the issue is hardly just semantics.

We are not dealing with the same "event". See the early discussions of "chambering" versus "hikite". We are dealing with an event that one group has no understanding of, and so when they name it, they continue to pass on their ignorance.

Eventually, it must be said that it is not the nature of the sign that makes it have meaning for us, but rather the connection we make between it and the concept we mean it to represent.

Leave the Hermanuetical Circle out of this.

I like the example of the perplexed boxing student and his "front hand grab and push" (although the idea's a bit of a stretch, because jabbing is fairly natural - it's part of the curriculum at my school),

The idea is hardly a stretch, because it is the essence of this conversation.

The people who call that motion a low block, or call a given motion chambering do not understand what that motion actually is. They are practicing "front grab and push" and not jabbing.

The ancient Greeks knew of two particular stars, Hesperos and Phosphoros. Hesperos, when it appeared, was always the sky with the setting sun, and Phosphoros always appeared just before the sun rose in the morning - hence the names Evening Star and Morning Star (a few may know where I'm going already). The Babylonians, centuries before, had this crazy idea that the two were the same, but the Greeks didn't care about ancient ideas. For them, they were two different things. Of course, nowadays, we know that Hesperos is the planet Venus, and we know that Phosphoros is...the planet Venus. They're the same thing. So the Greeks had two names for the same thing? Weird. But they didn't think of it that way. They had two concepts in their mind, and they came up with names for them.

You just proved my point.

The Greeks were wrong.

So, when we refer to Venus, we're referring to what, to those ever-wise Greeks, were two different concepts. When I refer to hadan mahkee, I'm referring to what, given different circumstances, might actualize as a number of different painful experiences for my opponent.

No, when you refer to hadan makgi, you using a Korean term for low block that in now way signifies multiple experiences.

Which is why we call it hadan mahkee. See my point about why I like a standardized vocabulary upon which we can all agree?

Not standardized.

Wrong.

A standardized vocabulary already exists for these motions. This vocabulary reflects the actual means and methodologies for these movements. This vocabulary was not passed to the majority of Japanese karate practitioners, and was thus even more lost upon the Koreans, and then the Westerners found themselves removed even a step further.

To use your example, it is the difference between our concepts of "cup" and "door". "Low block" & "hadan makgi" are trying to block a space with a drinking implement. It doesn't matter what your concept may be. You're not keeping anyone out of your house with that cup.

So really, saying that it creates a "stumbling block" to learning is doing a disservice. The instructor has a responsibility to impart what he knows, and the student has a responsibility to take that and grasp it, learn it, internalize it, and use it to enhance his or her own learning -- and to wait until the teacher says he's ready to take the next step on his own. This is the kind of thing that separates the good student from the not-so-good. Those who want to know will seek after that knowledge. Piling it on only gives you a student who knows (or thinks he knows) more than he can use.

It does create a stumbling block, or in actuality, a stumbling mountain. As you said, the instructor has a responsibility to impart what he knows, and if he only knows a miscommunication, he will only pass that on and amplify it, like the whisper game.

Anyway, just had to get that out. You bring up semantics around a linguist, prepare for a lesson

Bring up John Stuart Mill around a philosophy major, and see what happens.

 

[JT_the_Ninja]

You're missing my point here, and making claims about the way I use terms that you're not licensed to make.

When I say I use the term hadan mahkee to mean what I say I mean....I do. Terms are constantly being redefined. Again, don't debate word meanings with a linguist.

I agree that there are schools out there that don't understand what a hadan mahkee really does, because their concept of it doesn't include all that mine does (I'm sounding like Locke here, I know, but there it is). But that doesn't include mine, as I've pointed out to you. At least, not as concerns the students who really ask questions, and certainly not for me.

I'm not going to play the quote-pick-apart game with you, so I'll just answer your claims directly.

You are making broad claims about everyone who uses a term, when what you call it doesn't matter. It's what you know it as that matters for your understanding. You're assuming that any student of TSD is inherently wrong, because of some miscommunication. You're missing the point that TSD is an effective system, and that maybe, just maybe, there are people who study it who know what they're doing, and they're doing things right. You're assuming that nobody can look at something, say "hey, you know this would also work that way," and incorporate those ideas into the same concept they connect with a certain word.

You assume too much. TSD is not for people who assume.

 

[Errant108]

You're missing my point here, and making claims about the way I use terms that you're not licensed to make.

When I say I use the term hadan mahkee to mean what I say I mean....I do.

Unfortunately, you are in the minority, because hadan makgi is not hadan makgi, and this has lead to confusion and degredation of curriculum. The two issues go hand in hand.

Terms are constantly being redefined. Again, don't debate word meanings with a linguist.

Do you speak or read Korean, Japanese, Okinawan, Mandarin, or at least know how to read Hanja?

Don't debate terms with a philosopher.

See how arrogant that sounds? It's the fallacy of appeal of authority. I can do it just as easily to justify my views, but I've proved nothing.

I agree that there are schools out there that don't understand what a hadan mahkee really does, because their concept of it doesn't include all that mine does (I'm sounding like Locke here, I know, but there it is).

Good for you, but it doesn't change the fact that because hadan makgi literally translates as low block, that countless other see hadan makgi only as low block, whereas accuracy in terms eliminates this problem. Your concept may be more inclusive, but not everyone is going to understand that. Most people will continue to use the cup to bar access to their house, no matter how ineffective it is.

But that doesn't include mine, as I've pointed out to you. At least, not as concerns the students who really ask questions, and certainly not for me.

And that is a very inefficient teaching methodology which has once again lead to a degredation of the effectiveness of the system.