japanese words

[sensei8]

Some people can learn a new language much easier than most. I'm from the most group. I've read that learning a new language is quite easy once one has learned at least one. Is that true or not?!? I've no idea!!

But, imho, it's unfair of us instructors to require a student to learn Japanese/ETC. of ones style of the MA. For some students, their native language might be quite demanding on its own, but to then add to their frustration by making it a requirement...seems...uncalled for.

I leaned Soke and Dai-Soke dialect more out of survival, and they mixed up Okinawa and Japanese TOGETHER...MOMMY!! All of the years, their English never got any better. To me, this was aggravating, yet, they were not from an English speaking country, therefore, I can't really fault them. I suppose they did their best...I suppose!!

I once, when I was in Japan, and I was a total novice at the conversation Japanese/Okinawa. So, what did I do? I pieced together the very few words in with dojoese, and I was looked at like I had lost my mind. So, I took out the conversational words, not a stretch, and tried just using dojoese!! That made it worse because dojo commands aren't the same as Japanese conversations: Deer caught in headlights, was the expression on all of their faces.

[DWx]

But, imho, it's unfair of us instructors to require a student to learn Japanese/ETC. of ones style of the MA. For some students, their native language might be quite demanding on its own, but to then add to their frustration by making it a requirement...seems...uncalled for.

I have to disagree with this Bob. Sure it is more difficult for some students to pick up on the language aspect but you're not asking them to learn a whole language with grammatical rules and tenses. At most it is maybe a list of 100 words to identify what they're doing and IMHO that's not unfair.

You yourself travelled to train in Okinawa, whilst you did not have a grasp on conversational Japanese / Okinawan, surely it must have been of benefit to at least understand what was meant by mawashi geri or by chudan zuki.

[sensei8]

But, imho, it's unfair of us instructors to require a student to learn Japanese/ETC. of ones style of the MA. For some students, their native language might be quite demanding on its own, but to then add to their frustration by making it a requirement...seems...uncalled for.

I have to disagree with this Bob. Sure it is more difficult for some students to pick up on the language aspect but you're not asking them to learn a whole language with grammatical rules and tenses. At most it is maybe a list of 100 words to identify what they're doing and IMHO that's not unfair.

You yourself travelled to train in Okinawa, whilst you did not have a grasp on conversational Japanese / Okinawan, surely it must have been of benefit to at least understand what was meant by mawashi geri or by chudan zuki.

Would you fail a student if they couldn't pronounce any Korean techniques? If so, why? If not, why?

It's one thing to understand what command and/or technique is being uttered than having to pronounce it!! Two different worlds, imho. None are the same, imho. So, when I went to Okinawa with Soke and Dai-Soke, yes, I understood what the command and/or technique was having already been exposed to it at the Hombu. I was fluent in the COMMANDS and the TECHNIQUES but not in the conversation language; that was under construction. Key here, imho, is "I" was. And I am, but to require a student of mine, directly and/or indirectly, to be fluent in Okinawa/Japanese commands and techniques, imho, is unfair. Not all can, therefore, I don't require!!

[DWx]

But, imho, it's unfair of us instructors to require a student to learn Japanese/ETC. of ones style of the MA. For some students, their native language might be quite demanding on its own, but to then add to their frustration by making it a requirement...seems...uncalled for.

I have to disagree with this Bob. Sure it is more difficult for some students to pick up on the language aspect but you're not asking them to learn a whole language with grammatical rules and tenses. At most it is maybe a list of 100 words to identify what they're doing and IMHO that's not unfair.

You yourself travelled to train in Okinawa, whilst you did not have a grasp on conversational Japanese / Okinawan, surely it must have been of benefit to at least understand what was meant by mawashi geri or by chudan zuki.

Would you fail a student if they couldn't pronounce any Korean techniques? If so, why? If not, why?

It's one thing to understand what command and/or technique is being uttered than having to pronounce it!! Two different worlds, imho. None are the same, imho. So, when I went to Okinawa with Soke and Dai-Soke, yes, I understood what the command and/or technique was having already been exposed to it at the Hombu. I was fluent in the COMMANDS and the TECHNIQUES but not in the conversation language; that was under construction. Key here, imho, is "I" was. And I am, but to require a student of mine, directly and/or indirectly, to be fluent in Okinawa/Japanese commands and techniques, imho, is unfair. Not all can, therefore, I don't require!!

I didn't say pronunciation had to be spot on. I doubt very much most Western instructors truly pronounce it right. 99% of the world can't even pronounce "Tae Kwon Do" properly. But as you have already stated, the understanding of what is meant by the term has to be there.

I assist on our grading panel and usually am given control over the theory part of the exam so for our students I directly get to decide if they pass or fail on terminology. And I have failed students on their theory if they have no clue when it comes to the Korean (my instructor then takes this into account when deciding pass / fail overall). I'm not asking much, even if they don't get the pronunciation right they should at least demonstrate they know the difference between makgi and jirugi, tulgi and chagi, and attempt to communicate this. There are levels of course and I take into account age and education level. For an adult I would ask "What is the 1st move in Do San in Korean?" and expect the full answer, with a child or less able adult I might ask them to show me the move then describe the components i.e. stance, section, type of block. Easier still I might ask those that have real difficulty to show me the move and ask "Is this kaunde or nopunde? an-palmok makgi or sonkal makgi?" and so on.

So I don't think it's unfair to make students attempt to at least learn part of the language. It sets them up for opportunities to train with other people who might not speak the same language (but know the relevant terminology) or for the student to travel as you did to the homeland of the style and broaden their experience.

[sensei8]

But, imho, it's unfair of us instructors to require a student to learn Japanese/ETC. of ones style of the MA. For some students, their native language might be quite demanding on its own, but to then add to their frustration by making it a requirement...seems...uncalled for.

I have to disagree with this Bob. Sure it is more difficult for some students to pick up on the language aspect but you're not asking them to learn a whole language with grammatical rules and tenses. At most it is maybe a list of 100 words to identify what they're doing and IMHO that's not unfair.

You yourself travelled to train in Okinawa, whilst you did not have a grasp on conversational Japanese / Okinawan, surely it must have been of benefit to at least understand what was meant by mawashi geri or by chudan zuki.

Would you fail a student if they couldn't pronounce any Korean techniques? If so, why? If not, why?

It's one thing to understand what command and/or technique is being uttered than having to pronounce it!! Two different worlds, imho. None are the same, imho. So, when I went to Okinawa with Soke and Dai-Soke, yes, I understood what the command and/or technique was having already been exposed to it at the Hombu. I was fluent in the COMMANDS and the TECHNIQUES but not in the conversation language; that was under construction. Key here, imho, is "I" was. And I am, but to require a student of mine, directly and/or indirectly, to be fluent in Okinawa/Japanese commands and techniques, imho, is unfair. Not all can, therefore, I don't require!!

I didn't say pronunciation had to be spot on. I doubt very much most Western instructors truly pronounce it right. 99% of the world can't even pronounce "Tae Kwon Do" properly. But as you have already stated, the understanding of what is meant by the term has to be there.

I assist on our grading panel and usually am given control over the theory part of the exam so for our students I directly get to decide if they pass or fail on terminology. And I have failed students on their theory if they have no clue when it comes to the Korean (my instructor then takes this into account when deciding pass / fail overall). I'm not asking much, even if they don't get the pronunciation right they should at least demonstrate they know the difference between makgi and jirugi, tulgi and chagi, and attempt to communicate this. There are levels of course and I take into account age and education level. For an adult I would ask "What is the 1st move in Do San in Korean?" and expect the full answer, with a child or less able adult I might ask them to show me the move then describe the components i.e. stance, section, type of block. Easier still I might ask those that have real difficulty to show me the move and ask "Is this kaunde or nopunde? an-palmok makgi or sonkal makgi?" and so on.

So I don't think it's unfair to make students attempt to at least learn part of the language. It sets them up for opportunities to train with other people who might not speak the same language (but know the relevant terminology) or for the student to travel as you did to the homeland of the style and broaden their experience.

Solid post!!

I agree that it's not...

"...unfair to make students attempt to at least learn part of the language." No harm and no foul! Within the Shindokan circle, however, we don't intentionally or unintentionally make testing students speak the Japanese/Okinawa terms/techs and the like during a testing cycle. Those on the testing panel will instruct the testing student as to what they're to do. Yes, we on the testing panel will use the proper terms/techs and the like, and if the testing student has no idea what we're asking, then we'll instruct them in English. Yes, the longer one's been in Shindokan, the more the student should UNDERSTAND what's being asked of them.

I, personally, don't give one bent pin care if my students can or can't say terms/techs and the like because I'm not there to teach them Japanese/Okinawa.

Sure, for historical/traditional purposes it's important, and some might argue that you're not teaching traditional anything if you're not speaking the terms/techs and the like in Japanese/Okinawa. But, it's not a testing cycle requirement within the Shindokan circle!!