I've always wondered why William Cheung, who is a HK native, spelled his Wing Chun terms differently from everyone else. He writes Bil Jee, Chum Kil, Larp Sao, etc instead of Biu Jee, Chum Kiu, or Lop Sao. Is HK dialect a bit different from standard Cantonese that would lead him to do this?
Small Circle
- Thread starter wingchun100
- Start date
There are standard romanizations like Jyutping and Yale. I always use the latter, more logical to me.
His spellings don't appear to be of a standard system, but if you read them as an Australian would, you'd get close to correct pronunciation.
For example, Larp pronounced by an American would have a hard R, which would be wrong, but an Australian would pronounce it as an American would pronounce Lop, with an <ah> sound.
So, both end up being correct if read by the right people.
Same with Bil and Biu, I think. Seems they'd kind of round that L out into more of a W, making the Biu sound from reading Bil in their accent, and not like a guy named Bill as an American would read it.
I don't know, but I'd guess an Aussie helped him spell out the words he was saying when he started teaching there.
But "uh-huh" is still the wrong sound, as is <sh>.
If you're going to bother correcting someone's pronunciation, why not bother about getting it correct?
I mean...really? Your instruction is just as wrong as mine then. Cantonese does not have a single diphthong, yet you instructed as /eu/, which Cantonese frankly just does not have.
Instead, they say /œ/, which is a single vowel.I have to admit that there is variation within English on how people say even rudimentary things like "uh-huh". For some it might be close to /'œh hœh/, while some might actually go for /'ah hah/ type of pronunciation.
But Cantonese speakers definitely DON'T go /leuŋ seuŋ/, that's just plain wrong.
It does. Suggest you learn some Cantonese first.
yet you instructed as /eu/, which Cantonese frankly just does not have.
/eu/ = Yale
/œ/ = IPA
You are confused.
Never heard anyone pronounce it like that in all my life, not even a cartoon character.
You are combining Yale and IPA. You are confused.
Hey LFJ, don't be condescending. Maybe he does know some Cantonese, but just doesn't have any knowledge of linguistics as you obviously have. That may be why he confuses the International Phonetic Alphabet translation with Yale.
Personally, I'm glad we have someone like you on board who really does know this stuff. A zillion years ago I earned a degree in Social Anthropology and had a bit of linguistics training. Just enough to know how ignorant I am. Most folks don't have even that (Dunning Kruger again?). And if they do speak a second language, they think that alone makes them an authority.
You are coming at this at a much higher level. But give the guy a break. At least he seems to know some Cantonese. When I try to pronounce Cantonese terms, native speakers look at me with a mix of confusion and pity!
OP
OP
wingchun100
Senior Master
Hey LFJ, don't be condescending. Maybe he does know some Cantonese, but just doesn't have any knowledge of linguistics as you obviously have. That may be why he confuses the International Phonetic Alphabet translation with Yale.
Personally, I'm glad we have someone like you on board who really does know this stuff. A zillion years ago I earned a degree in Social Anthropology and had a bit of linguistics training. Just enough to know how ignorant I am. Most folks don't have even that (Dunning Kruger again?). And if they do speak a second language, they think that alone makes them an authority.
You are coming at this at a much higher level. But give the guy a break. At least he seems to know some Cantonese. When I try to pronounce Cantonese terms, native speakers look at me with a mix of confusion and pity!
Let him have his fun. If being condescending to those who mispronounce a language they do not speak is what he needs to feel superior, then who are we to judge or stop him? Besides, I'm not concerned about the comments on my pronounciation. The focus is supposed to be on the different approaches between the lineages. That's all I'm paying attention to. I mean, MT gave us the ignore button for a reason.
Hang on, pal, I was not being condescending toward you for your mispronunciation or anything!
I made a post to help you, if interested, because the guy who did call out your mispronunciation just gave you further errors to take on.
In any case, if you or others want to know how to pronounce the name of the guy whose Wing Chun lineage you study, the audio has been provided.
Spell it or explain it however you want, just try to say it how you hear it, if you care to. If not, never mind.
No... but whatever. This is not a language forum, and not everyone seems to care, anyway.
Unfortunately, though, because I think language is often essential to understanding the finer shades within TCMAs.
It really opens a new world of understanding to know directly what the creators of styles said in their own languages. Especially since Chinese is very expressive in ways that don't translate well to other languages.
Lots of misunderstanding has come from getting the wrong idea of some terminology, or by simply not receiving it. I've seen this happen in many TCMAs besides Wing Chun. People will totally misinterpret some actions in a form, when the old poems associated with the form tell you exactly what it's for!
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
No... but whatever. This is not a language forum, and not everyone seems to care, anyway.
Unfortunately, though, because I think language is often essential to understanding the finer shades within TCMAs.
It really opens a new world of understanding to know directly what the creators of styles said in their own languages. Especially since Chinese is very expressive in ways that don't translate well to other languages.
agreed....but I still say Cantonese has to many words
Lots of misunderstanding has come from getting the wrong idea of some terminology, or by simply not receiving it. I've seen this happen in many TCMAs besides Wing Chun. People will totally misinterpret some actions in a form, when the old poems associated with the form tell you exactly what it's for!
Yup, see Shen (as in Xīnshén 心神)..... translated to spirit...and then watch the misconceptions run on and on and on..... I cannot speak for Cantonese since I don't speak it, but I assume it Is the same since we are still talking China. What many do not understand is the Chinese have categories of things where we (in the USA anyway) have things we put in categories. Cow, bull, water buffalo are all related. To the Chinese they are all just different types of cows. Same with Shen.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Nothing to see here, just off topic side discussions....just move along....
My apologies for contributing to the thread derailment
Lots of misunderstanding has come from getting the wrong idea of some terminology, or by simply not receiving it. I've seen this happen in many TCMAs besides Wing Chun. People will totally misinterpret some actions in a form, when the old poems associated with the form tell you exactly what it's for!
On the other hand, many prominent WC/VT practitioners are Cantonese speakers ....
....and they still disagree about almost everything.
Back to the subject of the OP, it's somewhat hard to comment on the different methods between the two lineages as demonstrated without knowing intended applications and principle/concept behind the application (if any exist beyond 'do the technique like this'). I can see reasons for doing it both ways. The first where you circle back before the line, that cold be to receive energy on the bridge while clearing the line and also raising to have leverage before going to laan.
Again, all depends on applications and the theory being demonstrated.
As for the small arm breaks (you call tok sau) in the second LS form, I can't see much application for that given there doesn't appear to be much leverage generated to break much of anything. But then, without knowing the application, it's hard to comment at all.
Again, all depends on applications and the theory being demonstrated.
As for the small arm breaks (you call tok sau) in the second LS form, I can't see much application for that given there doesn't appear to be much leverage generated to break much of anything. But then, without knowing the application, it's hard to comment at all.
wingerjim
Green Belt
No it goes like this....So no sh!t I was in a bar when..........
wingerjim
Green Belt
Thank you for posting. Looks to me like the difference between an early Ip Man student and a later Ip Man student. Obviously Leung Sheung learned well before Ip Ching so it would be normal for two students who learned about 25 years apart to do things differently because Ip Man was know for evolving himself over time.
