CandleKilla----18/10/2001 12:35 PM----Post Number: 1


Well, seems like everyone is not feeling very well about some recent issues*thumbsdown*. I was reading the 'White Book' and found a page with old terms of gumdo stances. Let's memorize them for fun . We'll have a contest someday.

The ones on the left side are the modern names and the ones on the right side are the old names.

Gi Ma Gyun Juk Se - Gi Ma Gwan Chun Tae Yang Nae Gah Shin Gong

Hwaeng Dahn Il Gum - same

Kwang Ja Begi - Ship Gum Mi Ship Ja Gi Ma Byul Cham Se

Dae So Se- Il Dang Baek In Lyuk Dae Shin Gong

Bum Se - Dae Juk Dae Bi Dan Lyun Shin Gong

Gum Gye Dok Lip Pal Sang Se - Chung Ahng Jung To Bi Bum Shin Gong

Ja yun Se - Shim Gum Chun Yun Dae Juk Shin Gong

So Do Se - Gi Gi Bo Oon Ji Lap Shin Gong

Jo Chun Se - Bi Cho Kwan Chun Ji Ap Shin Gong

Ji Ha Se - Ji Gum Sun Chal Don Ahk Shin Gong

good luck....

Anthony_Boyd----19/10/2001 1:11 AM----Post Number: 2


I wonder if these terms are taken from Gicheon. Do you know? How would you rate the "White Book" in terms of accuracy, content and convenience?

Ryan, do any of these terms look familiar from your research in this area?

Thanks for the list CK. I was excited (panicked) at the thought of a contest but then I unfortunately discovered (joyfully realized) that as one of the managers (jerks with the keys)of this community it would be unethical for me to participate (a great distress to lose).

Ryan----19/10/2001 1:16 AM----Post Number: 3


From what little I can read of the ki-chun books I picked up I can say that I definitely do not know...yet. I'll do a little homework and see what I can find. Until later..

Ryan----21/10/2001 7:16 AM----Post Number: 4


Well, I've finally done my homework. Here's what I found. Most of the names I've found in what I've tried to read about gi-chun moon are very similar to the names we use. (keeping in mind I'm understanding very little of what I'm reading unless it's accompanied by a big, clear picture) On the left our names, on the right, gi-chun moon names.

gim-ma sae - nae ga shin jang ????
bum sae - bum do bup ???
so do sae - so do bup???
dae do sae - dae do bup ???
geum gye dok lib pal san sae - geum gye dok lib pal san bup
?????
pok ho sae - hu gong bup (very similar to our pok ho sae) ???

Haidong Gumdo Vocabulary Guide
[Primary Contributors: Brian Gihm, Andrew Pratt, Other material by: Anthony Boyd]

*Some display issues affect the layout in this format.


· Basic commands

??/?? Korean / Chinese Romanised Translation / explanation
?? (??) Chunbi Get ready
?? (??) Gyôngnye Bow
?? Paro Relax (return to ready stance) / ‘At ease’
?? (??) Sijak Start
?? (??) Paldo Draw sword
?? (???) Chakkôm Sheath sword
?? ?? (?? ??) Chungmyôn kyônjôk Centre ready or centre aim
?? (??) Kihap Short exhalation of breath, often in combination with a cut. Kihap is common in Asian martial arts but is often poorly explained.
?? (??) ???? Chase pakkuseyo Change stance to face the rear

· Stances (?, ?, Se)

??/?? Korean / Chinese Romanised Translation / explanation
??? (???) Kima-se Horse-riding stance. This is common is many Asian martial arts and is used to build up the thigh muscles. The twist in HDGD is to turn the knees inwards. This seems to increase the pain without noticeably increasing muscle build.
??? (???) Taedo-se Long or high stance (lit: great stance), Front leg bent, rear leg straight.
??? (???) Sodo-se Short or low stance (Lit: small stance). Front leg should be bent 90o with thigh horizontal. Rear knee should be just above the ground (one fist span). Ideally, the knee should be bent 90o with the shin horizontal.
??????? (???? ???) Kumge dongnip palsang-se Stand on one leg (Lit: Golden rooster standing on one leg with pal sang, where pal sang is shape from the old Chinese philosophy book Joo Yuk). This is a balance exercise.
??? (???) Chayôn-se Standing in a natural (short stance) posture.
??? (???) Choch’ôn-se Upper ready stance. Basically taedo-se with sword raised and hips aligned front to back, ready for chungmyôn paegi. The front elbow should point towards the opponent while the rear elbow should point 90o.
??? (???) Chiha-se Lower ready stance. Same as chayôn-se except that the sword points at the ground 30o outside the right leg.
?? (-?) Pôm-se Tiger stance (‘Cat stance’ in Japanese arts) aka back stance. Two versions.
???? (???) Pokho-se Multiple arc stance. Imagine a very deep sideways taedo-se. One should crouch on one leg while the other is stretched out to the side. The sword should be raised to protect the head and as much of the exposed leg as possible.



· Cuts (??, Paegi)

??/?? Korean / Chinese Romanised Translation / explanation
?? (??) ?? Chungmyôn paegi Straight or centre cut
? (?) ?? Chwa paegi Cut that begins from above left shoulder and ends just outside right waist
? (?) ?? U paegi Cut that begins from above right shoulder and ends just outside left waist
?? (??) ?? Hwengdan paegi Horizontal cut
?? (??) ?? Samdan paegi Chungmyôn paegi followed by chwa paegi followed by u paegi
?? (??) ?? Gwangja paegi Sequence of cuts that describe the Chinese character for light. (Samdan paegi followed by left hwengdan paegi followed by left and right taekyok). Stance is kima-se.
?? (??) Taekyok Great strike – any cut made in a wide arc
?? (??) Panggyok Blade held vertically to block an opponent’s thrust or cut. Lit.: Defending strike



· Sword (?, ?, Kôm)

??/?? Korean / Chinese Romanised Translation / explanation
?? Kôm ko Tip of the sword
?? Kôm nal Blade (the sharp edge, i.e. business end, of the sword)
?? Kôm tûng Back (backbone?) of the sword
??? Kôm mak-e Guard
???? Kôm sôn chap-hi Hilt
?? Home (pronounced ho-me) fuller (The shallow, narrow groove along the length of some blades)
?? Kôm chib Scabbard or sheath
?? (??) Ch’inkôm Sharpened sword. Lit: real sword
3 ?? Sam kakdo A type of ch’inkôm. The word refers to the manufacturing process. This weapon has been beaten so that it only has three sides. It is mainly used for cutting straw
6 ?? (??) Yuk kakdo A type of ch’inkôm. The word refers to the manufacturing process. This weapon has been beaten so that it has six edges. This is the commonest sword form. This sword is mainly used for cutting bamboo)
?? (??) Kakôm Blunt metal sword. Lit.: temporary sword
?? (??) Mokkôm Wooden sword
?? (??) Chukdo Bamboo weapon used for Kendo-style sparring practise.




· Names of patterns (?, ??, kômpop – method of using sword)

Note: All of the following terms are derived from either a 18th century military manual or are nationalistic terms

??/?? Korean / Chinese Romanised Translation / explanation
?? (??) Ssangsu Lit.: both handed sword, i.e. using a single sword with both hands
?? Sim Sang
?? (??) Yedo Techniques for a ‘short sword’
?? (??) Waesu Japanese (Lit.: Barbarian, but I don’t want to go into the politics) hand
?? (??) Ponguk Lit.: Our national sword
?? Jangbaek The Chinese (actually Manchurian) name for the volcanic crater on the Chinese-Korean border called Paekdusan in Korean. The mountain is mentioned in the founding myths of the Korean people and assumed political significance post-war because South Koreans could not visit the mountain until the 1990s (and then only the northern (Chinese) side).
?? (??) Umyang Lit.: Light and shade, the Chinese / Buddhist concept of balance. Often, as here, poorly explained
?? (??) Taeguk Taeguk literally means ‘great ultimate’ and now means the Korean national flag (Taeguk ki)
?? (??) Haedong People of the East Sea – Stand in Beijing (Peking) and look east towards Korea.
?? (??) Ssanggôm Techniques using two swords at the same time


· Kendo words


· Miscellaneous terms

??/?? Korean / Chinese Romanised Translation / explanation
??? Hurigi Swinging the sword around the body to ward off the opponent or give extra energy to a cut
???/?? Jump’u / twigi Jump
????? P’algup hyôpyôki Push ups
?????? Utmom lrok’igi Sit ups
Stretching
???? Candle extinguishing
????? Daenamu paegi Bamboo cutting
?? (??) Kyôkkôm sparring
??? Kyôruki sparring

· Greetings (??

??/?? Korean / Chinese Romanised Translation / explanation
?? (??) ??? Annyông Haseyo Hello (when you enter Dojang)
?? ????? Sugo hasyôssumnida You worked hard (usually at the end of practice, to the instructor and fellow students)
?? (??) ??? Kamsa hamnida Thank you (usually at the end of practice, to the Sabum-nim or Kwanjang-nim)
?? ????? Ch’ôum pwepkessumnida Pleased to meet you for the first time



· Titles

??/?? Korean / Chinese Romanised Translation
?? (??)? Kwanjang(Nim) Head of dojang
?? (??)? Sabum(Nim) Instructor
??? (???)? Pu-sabum(Nim) Assistant of junior instructor
??? Yudanja A black-belt of any grade
?? (??) Checha Believer of follower



· Counting

Koreans use two number systems when counting. One derives from native words and the other from Chinese loan words. The native numbering system is analogous to ordinals, i.e. first, second, etc. The actual system used to count any given object seems to depend very much on the objects that are being counted. The numbers that are normally heard in the dojang are the Chinese loan words and are given below.

The Chinese loan numbering is quite simple for numbers above 10. Just add the required units as prefixes (for the multiples of ten) and suffixes (for the units). The only difficulty is for numbers above a thousand. Chinese has breaks at 10,000, a hundred million, and a billion (American trillion). However, unless you enter into business or purchase a car or house in Korea then you are unlikely to come across numbers as large as these.

Number Chinese Romanised Korean pronunciation
1 ? Il
2 ? I
3 ? Sam
4 ? Sa
5 ? O
6 ? Yuk
7 ? Ch’il
8 ? P’al
9 ? Ku
10 ? Sip
34 ??? Samsipsa
100 ? Paek
1,000 ? Ch’on
10,000 ? Man
1,000,000 ?? Paekman



· Useful words and phrases

The following are a few words that might prove useful in the dojang.

Note on sentence structure (endings): Korean is a highly stratified culture and this is reflected in the structured language. It is very important for a Korean to understand their place in the world and once this is known the language reflects this position. The main impact is found at the end of the sentence where the ending reflects the relative positions of the speaker and the listener. To illustrate: the instructor will probably talk to the students using the polite form ‘seyo’ whereas students when talking to the instructor will normally finish the sentence with the honorific ‘imnida.’

Traditionally, things were relatively simple. The instructor was always old and the students always young. However, things are more complicated now and a young instructor may find himself teaching a student several years older than himself. This has the potential for confusion and offence and if you encounter this situation you will hear the two people using several different endings to establish their relative positions. In this situation, instructors tend to use ‘seyo’ or it’s slightly less formal form, ‘se.’ Curiously, tutors will often use the ‘imnida’ ending when talking to children.

These nuances to determine the relatively positions of the speakers are now very weak in English and almost non-existent in American but remain vitally important in the Korean (and Japanese) language. Finishing any sentence in ‘seyo’ or ‘imnida’ is safe and will not cause offence.

??/?? Korean / Chinese Romanised Translation
?? Posi Look. The instructor will say this when you change direction but fail to look first
???? Tachyôsoyo I’m hurt
?? (??) ???? Kôn’gang haseyo? Are you well (as a greeting)
? ???? Chal chinassôyo I am well
?? (??) ??? Sôlmyong hae chuseyo Please explain that
?? (??) ??? ihae haessôyo I understand
Arassayo I understand and will do it that way next time
?? ??? Towa chuseyo Please help me
??? Kapsida Lets go
??? Oseyo Please come here
??? Hapsida Lets do that
??? Tuseyo Please eat / drink (to someone more senior than you)
?? Mokja Lets eat (to someone of the same or lower position than you)
??? Maseyo Please drink (informal)

· Dobok (Uniform, ??, ??)

??/?? Korean / Chinese Romanised Translation
?? Paji Trousers
??? Otdori Top
? Tti Belt
??? Maettiôp Tie (i.e. the maettiôp on top of the uniform should be horizontal)


Romanisation and the McCune-Reischauer System

Romanisation of another language into English serves two purposes. The first, and possibly major task, is to guide the reader as to the pronunciation of the foreign word. The second task is to allow the reader to back-transliterate the word into the native script. The second function is particularly important for researchers and people who can speak that language. To illustrate, the word ?? could be Romanised as Shilla to reflect pronunciation or Sinra to reflect the Hangul.

There are four main systems of Romanisation for the Korean language. They are, the McCune-Reischauer (hereafter, McR), Seoul 1984 & 2001, and Yale. The Yale system was mostly devised for linguists and reflects all sound changes (Some linguists (including Koreans) have said to me that Yale is sometimes better than Hangul at reflecting Korean sound changes) and I think it also allows full back translation to the Hangul. Unfortunately it is a complex system and thus difficult to learn.

The McR system, in contrast, is focused upon following the pronunciation of Korean words, but is generally good at allowing the reader to reconstruct the hangul. This is the system that is generally used in academic papers and books.


A note of warning:

There are a number of problems with all Romanisation systems. Foremost are the assumptions they make about the English language and its pronunciation. As we all know, English is not pronounced the same wherever you go. Not only is pronunciation significantly different between countries but there are also often significant differences in pronunciations between regions and cities in each country. The creators of the McR system specified that in their systems consonants should be pronounced in the Germanic fashion and vowels in the French fashion.

Specific Romanisation issues for Korean:

The problems of Romanising Korean can be reduced to three main areas. One is that Korean has two 'o' and 'u's compared to English. The other problem is that when certain consonants appear together the sound changes (or the appearance in English is confusing, for example 'n' and 'g' appearing together).
There are also some aspirated sounds (where air is ejected when the letter if voiced), and these are reflected by putting an apostrophe after the word.

McR combats the first problem by using umlauted 'o' and 'u's for the extra vowels. That is, ô for ?, and û for ?.

The beauty of hangul is that it is based on syllables. This means that a Korean word is pronounced almost exactly as it is written. The sound changes caused by combinations of constants are explained by the following chart. Consonants can appear either at the beginning or at the end of a syllable. When the consonant is at the beginning, it is called an initial consonant, and when it appears at the end of a word it is called a final consonant. For instance, with ??, the initial consonant in the first syllable is an 's', the final consonant in the first syllable is a 'n' and the first consonant in the second syllable is a 'l/r.' The initial consonants appear across the top of the table, the final consonants are listed vertically.

Initial Final ? * ? K ? N ? T ? (R) ? M ? P ? S ? CH ? CH' ? K' ? T' ? P' ? H
?K G KK NGN KT NGN NGM KP KS KCH KCH' KK' KT' KP' KN
?N N N'G NN ND LL NM NB NS NJ NCH' NK' NT' NP' NH
?L R LG LL LT LL LM LB LS LCH LCH' LK' LT' LP' RH
?M M MG MN MD MN MM MB MS MJ MCH' MK' MT' MP' MH
?P B PK MN PT MN MM PP PS PCH PCH' PK' PT' PP' PH
?NG NG NGG NGN NGD NGN NGM NGB NGS NGJ NGCH' NGK' NGT' NGP' NGH

Note: A constant between two vowels is transcribed with its initial value except that ? is G, ? is D, ? is B, and ? is J.

There are a few other changes with the double-consonants, but they do not often appear.

The vowels are easier and are:

?= a, ? = ya, ? = ô, ? = yô, ? = o, ? = yo, ? = u, ? = yu, ? = û, ? = i, ? = wa, ? = wô,
?= ae, ? = e, ? = oe, ? = wi, ? = ûi, ? = wae, ? = we, ? = yae, and ? = ye

Official government Romanisation schemes

The Korean government has introduced various Romanisation schemes over the last 50 years with varying degrees of success. One of the longest lasting was the Seoul 1984 system which was a simplification of McR. The difference between the McR and Seoul 1984 systems was simply that the Korean authorities reasoned that umlauted letters were unfamiliar to most English speakers (i.e. Americans?) and would not recognise that the umlauts represent sound changes. Therefore, the Seoul 1984 system ignored the umlauted characters. This made transcription easier, but defeats the purpose of trying to reflect the pronunciation of Korean words.

From about 1999 there were moves within the government to replace the Seoul 1984 system. Committees and discussion groups were set up and the Seoul 2001 system was the result. The new system has proved rather controversial. It appears obvious that the new system is focused on transliterating hangul into English rather than providing a pronunciation guide to foreigners. The stated goal of the new system was to guide Koreans on how to write Korean words (principally people’s names it seems) in English. This all fine and good but what is the purpose of having such spellings in Korea where every Korean uses hangul? I continue to believe that the purpose of Romanisation is to help foreigners in Korea pronounce Korean words. At the practical level, the Seoul 2001 uses the form ‘oe’ to represent?and ‘ue’ for?. To me it appears that this scheme suffers the same failing that the authorities used to criticized McR, that is, the average foreigner will not understand the purpose of the ‘oe’ and ‘ue; and try and pronounce each vowel. To demonstrate, a station near me is called (Kangbyôn under McR). Using the Seoul 2001 Romanisation scheme, is written as Gangbyeon. I believe that the average foreigner who tries to pronounce this word as it is written will come out with ‘gang-bye-on’ which, I think is further from the original than ‘ Kang-byôn.’ The result will be that the Korean listener will be unable to understand which station the foreigner is talking about.


Although the Korean government has tried to require schools, private and public organizations to use its Romanisation systems, in my experience, most Koreans are unaware of the existence of formal systems of Romanisation and transliterate words as they think they should sound in English. Understandably, it appears that the average Korean feels that English letters do not adequately reflect Korean sounds, and when they Romanise Korean words, extra letters often appear. One of the commonest is 'h', as in, Rhee, Kihm, Shilla, Dahn Hak, Hahm or Nahm (This might be because the Korean word expects more voice or aspiration than is required in the English). The following is an initial attempt to list the Romanisation as used by the average Korean.

= g, k, ? = n, ? = d, ? = L,r, ? = m, ? = b, ? = s, sh
?= g, j, ? = che, ? = k, q, ? = t, ? = p, f, ? = h
?= ah, ? = yah, ? = uh, er, ? = yu, yir, yer, ? = oh, ? = yo,
?= u, oo, woo, ? = you, u, ? = e, u, ? = y, ee
?= ua, wha, ? = uer, er, war, ? = e, ae, ? = e
?= whe, wei, ? = wi, we, ? = ei, ui, ? = whe,
?= wei, ? = ye, yae, yei, ? = ye, yae, yei

Well, uh... yeah. Thanks!

Dear Primary Contributors,

Fantastic work!

Love,
Aaron

Regarding nomenclature for the parts of the sword:

".......?? Kôm ko Tip of the sword
?? Kôm nal Blade (the sharp edge, i.e. business end, of the sword)
?? Kôm tûng Back (backbone?) of the sword
??? Kôm mak-e Guard
???? Kôm sôn chap-hi Hilt ......."

Then one could also say, from the Japanese point of view---

"Kissaki: Tip of the sword
Ha: the sharp edge, i.e. business end, of the sword)
Mune: Back (backbone?) of the sword
Tsuba: Guard
Tsuka: Hilt ....."

Now what about terms like

"....

Hilt: "sonjabi", "hyup", "Kal jaru: Kal-jaru-gange"
Guard: "ko-deung-i"
Back of Sword: "Kal-deung", "Chuk"
Sword Edge: "ahk", "kal-na", "mul-ta", "Na munui", "Kal-be"
Tip of Sword: "Kal-keut", "Mang ja", "Bong" ....."

Anyone? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Sorry... completely uninterested and without need of the Japanese vocabulary. I have all the English and Korean terms I need. As I have said [preached?] a few too many times, I think it confuses the issue more than helps.




What is it that you are asking, exactly? Frequency of use? Meanings? Validity?

Son jabi translates directly as handle: "the part your hand holds". Kal or Geom jaru is a term that means hilt specifically, but is not limited to use in swords.[same as the use of hilt in English].

Kal is a term that often gets translated as knife, but seems to more accurately be blade as we would use it in English. Geom is a general word for sword. Kal-deung or Geom-deung literally means back of the sword. Deung means back both for your body and the metaphorical body of the sword. The parts of a sabre are of course differently named than the parts of a cut&thrust sword.

Some views on the sword have the point being the top (hence geom-ko) and others have the pommel as the top. Knowing which view your tradition embraces is important for remembering the terms your tradition uses. When the pommel is the head of the sword, the point becomes kal-geut (end of the sword).

Thanks, Anthony--

I think what I am looking for is more along the lines of validity--- call it "historical provenence" if you will. For instance take a look at some of the bits in your response.

"..... Son jabi translates directly as handle: "the part your hand holds". Kal or Geom jaru is a term that means hilt specifically, but is not limited to use in swords.[same as the use of hilt in English]....."

What I am working to identify IS a term that might be specific to the use of swords. In such a case as "son jabi", if the translation is only as specific as to mean "handle" I would want something much more specific to swordwork in particular. That would then bring me to kal ("blade") or "Geom" or even "To" (?).

I think where I am going awry is this.

"geom" in its present usage seems to be accepted as a general usage for "sword" but then there is no differentiation between a straight sword such as a jian and a curved dao. In its older usage a "geom" would suggest a jian but then once again the dao or To is not accounted for and arguably most of our work is with a curved weapon rather than a straight one. Using the term "Kal" almost seems to suggest a kind of slang, if you will, while the use of "To" may be an appropriate reading of the Chinese character but does not give proper respect to the use of the Korean transliteration of that character.

Now I am more than willing to admit that I may be getting in my own way, here. After all times have moved on and noone I know still teaches solely by hyung. Almost without exception everyone who teaches breaks a form or method down into tiny mouth-sized bits including posture, stances, steps, parries, blocks, cuts, thrusts and so forth. I don't know anyone who gives commands like, "go over there and practice your "advance and attack the thief." Its an important artifact of a by-gone era and we should be familiar with it but I don't know anyone who trains that way.

In like manner, I think it is important to have a common nomenclature that recognizes Korean culture but is also readily recognized and understood by practitioners whether they are doing Kumdo OR Kum-Bup. Thoughts? Comments?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

If you find and end up using some particular form of jargon while the country of Korea is pretty much uniformly using handle, will there not still be communication difficulties? Worse, once/if you find such a term you'll then have to get people to use it.


It does seem at times that you are trying to make something exist which might not necessarily have done so. For example, if kal jaru means hilt and is used for swords, knives, and daggers of various types does there need to be a term that is exclusive to swords? Europe was pretty big on war and what do we have? Hilt. Where do we use it? Swords, knives, daggers [and in metaphor for other things]. What is a hilt? A handle. If I hand you a sword and ask you to look at the handle can there be any confusion? If a group of Korean warriors hanging out at the Seoul Malt Shoppe were talking about the newest models of swords, waiting breathlessly for the 1789 Dragon Claw to be released, and one of them were to postulate about the trim on the son jabi would there be any doubt as to what he meant?

This is not to say that the oldest among them might not smack the speaker on the top of the head and say over the course of a 30 minute repetitive ramble, " YA~aah! We are professional soldiers. It's not called a handle, it's called a hilt. Show some pride in your work..." But I ask you, would there ever have been a moment's doubt in anyone present's mind about which part of the sword he was speculating?

A lot of attention is paid to this sort of vocabulary in the 'Damned Book'. This suggests two possibilities to me. The first is that the authors were trying to make it easy to reference different works on weapons wherein there are differing terms by giving the readers of their work an indication of what various parts of weapons had been called in earlier periods. The second is that it was not common to use these words and they wanted the military to adopt them.

BINGO!!!!

Thanks, Anthony. This was exactly where I have been wanting to go for some time now. And I think your examples were right on the money!!

So----- to put this in perspective

The Chinese might call it "the grip of the sword" And the Koreans might call it the "sword grip" or informally among the commoners as the "handle". The Japanese might call it "that end of the sword bound for holding."

If I had to target a terminology I would want to use the Korean "sword grip" meaning that my usage would "err" on the side of calling the end of the sword one holds a "hilt" and not a "handle". I do not want to use the Japanese because all I will get is the Korean transliteration of the Japanese interpretation of the Chinese anyhow. If we MUST follow this I would rather go straight from the Chinese characters to Korean IF the Koreans had not come up with a term of their own. This is where I am so interested in the MYTBTJ. It takes us straight from the Chinese to the Korean.

You also bring up a very good point that there is no sense in using a highly accurate terminology if, when all is said or done the typical sword practitioner simply doesn't know what I am talking about because the language is so outdated. I am hoping this won't happen. Have you run into this yourself? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Maybe I'm just not understanding. Shouldn't we just use the same terms as the Koreans do in Korea? Wouldn't that make more sense? If the're using them, and we're using them, and they all mean the same thing, shouldn't we use those?

I don't see any purpose to "restoring" the proper way of saying things. The fact that the word is used every day in the dojang makes it standard.

Dear Charles:

I agree 100% with you and will only insert this one caveat, 'kay? And, please, this is only MY experience, other people may feel differently.

I have been involved in the MA since 1973, and off and on in KMA until 1985 when I made a real commitment to the Hapkido arts. The Kwan to which I belong makes a strong point not just of learning the Korean art but also in researching the roots, and purposes and philosophy behind those arts. The result was that I had a pretty good founding in such history when I went out on the Internet. Going out on the Internet was a REAL experience, though. Some of the things I ran into really galled me!
For instance---

a.) The Koreans have no martial traditions. Their traditions all died out a long time ago.

b.) The Koreans have no martial traditions. Everything the Koreans have was taken from someplace else.

c.) The Korean traditions are effectively "martial arts Lite". If you want "real" martial arts you have to add something from somewhere else.

d.) The Korean traditions are deficient. People need to add material to them to make them, "combat effective", or "interesting" or "saleable".

And if THAT wasn't bad enough, I come to find out that there are gobs and gobs and gobs of information but the only reason it never gets talked about or communicated is that supposed KMA practitions are too damn lazy to get off their butts and share the information, look it up or study it. I'm sorry, Charles, but there is simply NO EXCUSE for this.

As far as "I" am concerned I study Korean Martial Arts. I want to do things steeped in Korean culture, Korean values, Korean language and which will bind me in with Korean practitioners. The Koreans had reasons for using some material and getting rid of other material. There is a reason that some terms are used and others are not. I want to know this information and I want to pass that on to my students.

I don't mean for this to be a "rant" so please don't take this as a negative experience. All I am saying is that if Korea decides to call something an "X-Y_Z' because thats what they have chosen to call it, I don't have a problem. I'll call it an "X-Y-Z" as well. What I don't want to do is call something an "A-B-C" because thats what they call it in "Kendo" and its just plain easier to use the Korean transliteration of Japanese terms because its already there and there are so darn many folks training in hitting each other with sticks. I'm sorry but the Koreans have their own traditions and they didn't need the Japanese to teach them how to use a sword, staff, knife or bare hands to take care of themselves. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

I have found that with a few minor exceptions [things like blade] each sword group here uses its own terms. There are even some differences in sword terminology between Daehan Haidong Gumdo schools and some Hanguk Haedong Kumdo schools.
So, if you only plan to speak with your cronies, all is well. Speaking with swordslingers from other traditions takes a little more work.