Hi Onyomi,
Oops… You are right. I think I over looked that one with GML convention.
My mistake, sorry about that, Jake.
Warm regards
Mantis108
I know pretty much nothing about mantis but I speak Chinese pretty fluently and since some other posters have already provided the Mandarin terms it’s pretty easy to explain at least how the words are different. They are quite different. Some have come on here and presented the ideas in a very mantis specific way talking about what body parts contact and so on but I think I can still add a bit by just pointing out how very different the meanings of the words are.
First, so I don’t get confused. the standard Mandarin:
- Ou (Hook) = gou
- Tiao (intercept) = diao
- Chan (contact) = zhan
Ou/gou - This generally really does mean to hook. The stereotypical mantis fist when used to hook onto someone’s arm. I’m going to use a fishing analogy because it covers both gou/ou and tiao/diao. The act of the fish hook hooking into a fishes mouth is “gou”. To use any hook shaped object, including a mantis fist, to hook somthing is called “gou”.
Tiao/diao - “fishing” is called, in Chinese “diao yu” where “yu” is the fish and “diao” is the act of throwing the fish hook out there to see what happens. It has a connotation of baiting. Throw something out there to attact prey and see if they come. “Diao” is a trap. If the prey falls for the bait, if your “diao” is succesful, you can say that they “shang gou le”, they “got on the hook” or "were hooked by your “diao”.
Chan/zhan - This means simply to stick to something. It is, in taijiquan usually presented together with “nian” which more literally means “sticky”. Zhan, in contrast, is more like the way a piece of celophane will “stick” to your hand from the static electricity. It just means maintaining light contact but has none of the mechanical connotation of hooking. It’s like just putting your hand on someone and maintaining contact no matter how they move.
I hope all this helps.
Diao is problematic because “intercept” is a poor translation. “Intercept” already has a standard translation in Chinese as “Jie” or in Cantonese, “Jeet” as in “Jeet Kun Dao”, same character.
Difference about the characters…
Hi Omerthefish,
Thanks for the input. I believe we have to bare in mind the context of Kung Fu volcabury has tendency to borrow meanings and also slang usage.
While Mandarin is the official langauge it’s has limitations when it comes to local dialects and slangs. In fact, Mandarin has it own slangs that may not be compatable with other dialects such as Cantonese. Shandong has it’s own dialect and slang just as Shanghai, Henan, Fujian, Guandong (Canton), etc. has its own. Sometime dialectic usage of words is employed. Couple with specific usage in a particular Kung Fu, the words become more esoteric in nature.
First, so I don’t get confused. the standard Mandarin:
- Ou (Hook) = gou
- Tiao (intercept) = diao
- Chan (contact) = zhan
Ou/gou - This generally really does mean to hook. The stereotypical mantis fist when used to hook onto someone’s arm. I’m going to use a fishing analogy because it covers both gou/ou and tiao/diao. The act of the fish hook hooking into a fishes mouth is “gou”. To use any hook shaped object, including a mantis fist, to hook somthing is called “gou”.
-
Gou/hook in full character is written with a “mouth” inside the radical on the right. the short hand form of Gou would use the (hook) radical on the right with the Gold radical as well.
-
Diao The character looks like the Tanglang claw. It also borrowed the meaning of another word that sounds similar but means toss aside/away. It has the meaning in Tanglang to intercept as well.
-
Diao (hooking as in fishing with a rod)
-
Diao (hanging or lift high and that left suspending/hanging)
This 2 words sounds almost the same but very different in meaning. The problem is that we see the latter is often used as the short hand form for the former.
- Diao Yu as is fishing with a rod. But this is also a China Na move (shoulder lock) in the Mantis lingo.
Similar problem exsit with the word Bang.
-
Bang as in helping this is also a Shandong dialectic (specific to Laiyang and Haiyang area) use of describing the use of forearm hitting/shoving horizontally. This word is used in Liang Xuexiang’s writing.
-
Bang as in binding. It’s sometimes seen as having the hand radical other than the silk radical on the left. It is often seen replacing the character (helping). The Bang (with the hand raidcal) is primarily found in Cui Shou Shan’s Quanpu which IMHO has a lot of typos. Cui seemed to have used a lot of short hand form to record his material.
-
Bang as in the upper limbs. Most of the Sevenstar’s manuscript use this character instead.
Tiao/diao - “fishing” is called, in Chinese “diao yu” where “yu” is the fish and “diao” is the act of throwing the fish hook out there to see what happens. It has a connotation of baiting. Throw something out there to attact prey and see if they come. “Diao” is a trap. If the prey falls for the bait, if your “diao” is succesful, you can say that they “shang gou le”, they “got on the hook” or "were hooked by your “diao”.
Diao Yu is a Chin Na move in Mantis lingo. Also baiting is done usually with Dian Shou (dotting or spotting hand). So it won’t be that generic.
Just some thought to share…
Regards
Mantis108
Sometimes you can really make too much of dialects.
That’s a different Diao than I was talkking about but there is nothing slang or dialect specific about any of those characters or meanings other than the secondary meaning for “bang” in Shandong dialect. The others all mean the exact same thing in Mandarin.
The keywords are an attempt to express that which at certain levels can’t be express through word spoken or written. The keywords are point.
Use them as a starting point and you might find yourself limited by you level of understanding but, you understanding will grown and so, your expressions.
I suggest finding as much as you can in what you are or have learned and practice attack and defense using this knowledge. Change distance and timing, allowing for change and variation. Use the mind and visualization to help you with limitless possiblity.
Robert
Those be the ones! Thanks buddy!
Cheers
Jake 
Hi Jake,
I am glad that they matched your material. I am more than happy to be of service, my friend.
Warm regards
Robert
Over the years I have read many articles about the keywords and seen many advertisements for seminars on the keywords. In fact, I would say the majority of all published Northern Praying Mantis articles in magazines such as Inside Kung Fu are about the keywords. They are definitely an integral part of our style although I think each school and each teacher puts a different emphasis on it. I believe to debate it is much like the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Clearly, Sifu Albright and I agree on many things. We have both stated that there are more techniques than there are keywords and that the keywords are used to identify and organize the techniques of the style.
I believe where we differ is when and how much emphasis to place on them. Some schools teach the keywords early on, as their foundation. “Here are 12 keywords to our style. Memorize the words and understand what they mean. You will learn the techniques that can be grouped into these keywords.”
We don’t follow this approach. From early on, our students start practicing partner drills and application of the techniques. They practice the variations and are explained why the variations exist and why it would be logical or preferential to use one over another. After a student has been with the style long enough to have some understanding and an arsenal of techniques, we can begin discussing the keywords. At this point, the student is able to visualize the keywords based on all the techniques they have learned so far and associate them. But still, the keywords are more academic. I don’t face my opponent and think, I am going to use the “ou” principle or the “gwa” principle. My techniques will depend on many factors: the size of my opponent, our distance, his timing, his actions or reactions. I will use strategy to lead the opponent into traps and locks but these are not governed by the keywords.
I find that many schools place a heavy emphasis on these keywords. That students devote so much time to memorizing what they mean and analyzing which techniques belong where. From my own training experience, I focused on the techniques. When and how to apply them against various sized opponents. In every class, we practice the techniques against everyone else in class in round robin fashion so that I practiced against many different body types. This was the emphasis of my training from my Sifu and with this understanding, I can identify each technique into a keyword if necessary but I did not have to spend time memorizing a list. This is why I say they are academic. They provide order and identification but do not govern how I fight. For sure they are part of the style, just not everyone views them the same way.
Vance Young
Yong Mantis,
Any particular reason why you want to make it sound like the Law Clansman does not teach partner drills and applications to technqiues early on? You make them sound like a bunch of penicl pushers.
Posted by Young Mantis:
I believe to debate it is much like the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Why do you seem so intent then on stating that you are in disagreement? This is the second time, but when I look to see what you are actually in disagreement with, either I cannot find anything, or it is a minutely irrelevant point, or as in this case it is not true.
Hope to get some clarification.
Thanks,
BBK
BBK,
I did not ever claim that Sifu Albright does not teach applications nor partner drills. While I have not observed any of his classes, I am aware of his school’s reputation for being able to fight. I noted that there are different approaches to teaching the keywords. I gave an observation of articles presented historically on Northern Praying Mantis and I offered the level or placement of emphasis of the keywords at our school.
I am not trying to express disagreement, only a different opinion. As I have stated, every school and every teacher will present the material differently. I never said one way is better than the other, just giving a different opinion than what seems to be the norm based on publicity. I wasn’t aware presenting a different point of view was to be in disagreement. I did disagree in my initial post about what I thought was “more alive”. I understand now that that in itself is based on point of view. I view the techniques to be ever changing and the principles the same so the techniques are “more alive”. Sifu Albright presented that since the techniques come and go, the principles are more alive since new techniques can represent the same principles. This was the chicken and egg analogy. I don’t believe debating to be disrespectful. Why else would we have these discussions on this forum?
If my post was found to be offensive by anyone, then I apologize for not making my intentions more clear. It was just my point of view.
Vance
BBK,
Actually, upon further reflection of your post, even if I was to be in disagreement, why would this be questioned? Are we not allowed to disagree regardless of how minute a detail? Is this not what the forum is for? To learn from each other through debate and discussion? Again, to disagree does not equate to disrespect so I don’t understand why you question my post to begin with. From the posts following mine, I learned from others pointing out that the differences are actually not great, only a different frame of reference and I further clarified that difference.
I gave a difference of opinion and you asked for clarification of my intent and suddenly I felt I had to justify my presenting of my Sifu’s teaching method. If you would rather, I will just not post about the inner dynamics of my school anymore.
Young Mantis & Law Clansman,
I appreciated both of your statements! I learned much from both opinions and I am glad that each of you are willing to share and even possibly politely debate.
I didn’t sense any disrespect from either of you. This speaks of both of your moral virtues.
Richard A. Tolson
shows nobody is just tunnel vision too. keep up the debate guys. i love what most of you guys post.
roy
Young Mantis,
No worries. I appreciate the clarification, and as I should have said earlier the healthy discussion.
Originally I just wasn’t clear on where you were coming from when you described your approach as being different to LawCansman. You described teaching partner drills, applications, and variations - in this context it sounded like you were saying they didnt. I was just checking.
Peace,
BBK
Interesting discussion going on here. I’m certainly not as astute and learned in the writing styles and histories of the keywords and such. My sifu has always been of the “yes, but can you do it” mentality so I guess I am somewhat the same. That being said however, we do discuss and learn the keywords and principles of the system.
As to the technique vs principle discussion I can see both points made here by both Young Mantis and Sifu Albright. I guess I would fall in the group Young Mantis spoke about who focus on the principles rather than the techniques. I actually do, when fighting, approach my opponent thinking of the principles rather than techniques. As I have seen the principles are more adaptable in my opinion. The idea of trying to fight governed by certain technqiues is foreign to me. I can think I want to really apply the ou principle or the gwa principle while fighting, but it could be applied to a myriad of situations or techniques. I have found that if I govern my fighting by the principles I can adapt the technique to meet each situation. If I govern my fighting by techniques I must have a technique, practiced to the point of muscle memory that effectively and accurately fits the situation, that happening in every possible situation of a fight seems impossible to me. However I dont believe my “family” is represented here and we tend to focus extensively on “feel” and letting the opponent guide me into the technique or attack that best fits the situation. I find that if I attempt to focus on technique when fighting there is too much room for forcing a technique when abandoning the technique with feel would be a much wiser course of action. Now this is more than likely due to my skill level, but I find it interested the different ways we all approach mantis fighting. Even within my own “family” there are those who focus on technique over principle or feel, while we focus on feel over tehcnique…not to say one is above or more important than the next, they must both exist in a perfect harmony to really express the heart of mantis fighting.
As to the principles being academic, I can agree. We do not sit and memorize the 12 keywords, in fact I would have to go look them up to be sure of placing them in the correct order if listing them. However we tend to teach partner drills and applications from the idea of the principles rather than techniques. For instance the ou lou choy drill can teach a technique that embodies the principles but it is not the principles of ou, lou, and choy (Guo, Luo, Cai). These can be applied to many, many different situations, and techniques while the drill can only be applied to a small number of attacks with a straight punch. We try to encourage each other to think of various ways to aply the principles rather than the techniques. Can that same drill be done against a kick or just a punch? A hook? Etc. However I will say again, we focus quite heavily (probably more so than any other family I have seen) on the soft aspects of the system most notably yielding, emptying, plucking, etc. We get a bit more taiji-ish in our approach to fighting than many do.
All of that to say I can see the point of the keywords being academic but only until you begin to explore the many possibilities of how you can actively use them in many, many different ways. I also understand how techniques are adaptable and mutable from on person to the next, but I think that is because of the principles behind them. You can change any technique to fit any scenario as long as you stay within the “guidlines” of the principles. The bottom line is, what defines mantis fighting, the techniques or the principles? That is a debate that has been going long before us and will continue long after us. I do find it interesting to hear these discussions however and see the differences within the mantis community.
Train Hard
Hello all,
Albright Sifu and Vance Young, thank you both for your valuable insights. I definately agree that the principles are comatose without the technical expression, and that principles maintain the life and continuity of technical execution during spontaneous response.
Omarthefish
You bring up an excellent point. Without thorough experience of the culture, linguistics alone may lead to several tangents. Many of the traditionalists I know focus only 30-40% (estimate) on verbal transmission, and the remainder on experiential transmission of the art. So although many principles and techniques may be difficult to articulate in English, Polish, Italian, even Chinese…the art survives in the form of body language. Which brings up my question:
How early are the earliest quanpu, and how much deviation is there in the neo-classics? How much deviation is rooted in the evolution or illiteracy of the written language, accentual differences, and cultural implications? It may appear that written words may be beneficial yet limiting when cross referencing. Hence the importance of gathering in person to share TLQ experiences.
To productive posts,
M. Dasargo