What is the difference?

[47MartialMan]

'cheng gwa'

 

cheng=green

 

gwa=vegetable (of the non leafy kind....)

 

so translated directly you get 'green vegetable'.

 

but it actually means 'cucumber'.

 

What about bell pepper or other green vegetable?

 

And, someone may take that interpretation, and/or mis-interpretation, per context of the description.

[Drunken Monkey]

What about bell pepper or other green vegetable?

 

that's kinda it.

 

for a green pepper, it's something else.

 

(cheng jiu)

 

as i mentioned way before,

 

it's one of the idiosyncrasies of the chinese language.

 

if you don't know it,

 

you won't be able to figure it out no matter what the context.

 

hence, if you don't know the language you will give bad/wrong translations.

 

taking 'jiu'.

 

with one 'prefix' it's banana (heung jiu)

 

with another, it's pepper (cheng jiu)

 

with another, it's peppercorn (fa jiu)

 

so while you can read the characters separately to get a basic version of things,

 

you have to know that the two characters together mean something,

 

in order to really understand.

 

What about bell pepper or other green vegetable?

 

what about them?

 

'cheng gwa' ONLY refers to cucumber.

 

And, someone may take that interpretation, and/or mis-interpretation, per context of the description

 

again, that's why i say you will only mis-understand IF you don't know the language.

 

if you do, you will know that 'cheng gwa' is cucumber and nothing else.

 

(which is why i say that while it is true that in one sense it is a correct translation, it is at the same time, very wrong.)

 

if you want to say 'a vegetable of the non-leafy kind that is green'

 

(if taht is what you mean by the second above quote)

 

the grammar involved is different.

 

in that case, it is 'cheng sik gor gwa' (green coloured vegetable of the non-leafy kind).

 

going back to shaolin/sil lum.

 

if you want to say a young forest or a little forest,

 

the grammar is different.

 

so while sil lum DOES translate charcter for character into little/young forest,

 

it DOES NOT mean A little/young forest.

 

so going back to shaolin-do (shaolin way.

 

while the characters do translate directly to 'little forest way'

 

it doesn't mean little forest way.

[47MartialMan]

I got you. I understand/interpret what you are saying. I find it curious on how others interpret and/or mis-interpret such. I would generally post something in lines of interpretation/mis-interpretation for other posts, views, opinions, or interpretations.

[Drunken Monkey]

well, this is also why i get quite annoyed.

 

many people 'translate' from singular terms not knowing that the chinese langauge simply doesn't work like that.

 

it gets worse when people derive 'meanings' for things from romanised versions,

 

taking the romanised word to mean something that it doesn't originally.

 

i.e pa kua=old man hanging.....

 

 

so yes.

 

you're right,

 

people might translate the chinese into what is a possible reading

 

but

 

that reading will still be wrong.

 

if you were in a interpreting/translation class, if you wrote down that cheng gwa=green vegetable,

 

you'd get a big red cross.

[47MartialMan]

Ah yes. The intepretation used in context with translation.

 

But, if you were in a Etymology class. And the discussion or chapter is on interpretations (not the translation kind), you get a big green check. Per for cucumber and bell pepper, the subject at hand would be "cheng" separated from the others, and those others would be disected as well.

 

But, this is not to state that it is for actual speaking/communication or translation for. Whic i understand/interpret your point.

[Drunken Monkey]

hehe, that's another reason why chinese is a little more complex.

 

things ar sometimes when spoken to when written.

 

i mentioned this before,

 

there are many words that don't exist in writing.

 

or

 

if they do, it isn't a straight one for one wording.

 

take the 'bong sau' from wing chun.

 

that 'bong' doesn't exist in writing.

 

instead you use two other words that are conceptually correct but neither is the actual word.

 

But, if you were in a Etymology class. And the discussion or chapter is on interpretations (not the translation kind), you get a big green check

 

depends on the level at which you are looking.

 

if you take it to be 'green veg' you are only correct at a basic level (when looking at chinese from an etymological perspective).

 

to get the really big tick/check, you need to 'disect' the actual character into it's components and 'read' them (the characters) from the constituant parts.

 

 

but let's not get into the constituant parts of chinese characters, that bit gets really complicated and i need to be in front of you with a pen and paper to explain.....

[47MartialMan]

Yep, I bet that will REALLY get strange.

 

I get like you sometimes-repulsed, or how you say "narky". In the past, each time I came across this subject, I find controversy. I myself interpret or mis-interpret what someone else was conveying. Per your posts, I clearly understand/interpret what you convey. But I would add something, perhaps not what I really think/view, to get more responses, posts, opinions, info or to solidify my own. Somewhat like posting a "devils advocate" statement. Just throw out a statement and watch what happens. It is my sub-conscious "writing" flair to sometimes not ask directly or not give my straight opinion.

 

I guess I am "complicated"

[Drunken Monkey]

well, i say it'll get really complicated cos sometimes it just doesn't make sense.

 

for example, you might've seen some characters that have three 'dimples'

 

on the left hand side.

 

this is called 'three points of water'

 

(cos they somehow are derived from the character for water)

 

and usually feature as the key 'figure' in characters that something to do with water.

 

the character for 'sauce' has it

 

as does the character for 'soup'.

 

now this kinda makes sense.

 

what doesn't make sense is the other part of the character

 

and more specifically

 

where/how you get the other part.....

 

and sometimes, i'm sure it's just a big joke as to how the character is derived.

 

like i said;

 

it'd be easier if i could just show you.

[47MartialMan]

Yeah, i know what you mean by complicated. And describing such is a difficult task. it will be like trying to describe a form/set to someone that hasn't seen a particular move(s). So I undersatnd completely what you mean.

 

BTW, what is the term "to practice", or "exercise", say like a drill, or routine?

[Drunken Monkey]

remember that my romanisations are my own and are what i think best approximates the sound of cantonese.

 

to practice=lien

 

excercise=tay cho (although this is more for the modern/western version of exercise)

 

you can't use 'lien' by itself to say training.

 

to make the complete term, you have to add the thing you are leaning.

 

so you can't just say 'i'm going to go lien';

 

you have to add the subject.

 

e.g

 

lien kung=practice things that aid in your progress in your 'art'.

 

lien kuen=practice punch/hand/boxing skills/forms

 

lien mo=practice specifically fighting aspects

 

lien dar=practice hitting/being hit

 

and this is different to 'learning' which is 'hok'

 

but the same kinda rules apply.

 

you might notice that these things are very very similar in nature

 

but in principle/philosophical perspective,

 

they are fundementally different

 

whilst mainitaing a degree of overlap.

 

i.e you can learn to hit better by practicing forms

 

or vice versa.