Semantically Speaking, we have a problem

I have problem. I have a problem with a Japanese-based system that does not make the effort use correct Japanese. Not that I think you have to be fluent to learn such a system, but if choose to put one together, then it's kinda nice to be. Don't you think?

We have forever snarked about Head Honcho sensei's spelling errors, as well as his inability to translate things correctly. Yet nobody attempts to change anything. Compounding the problem is the fact none of Head Honcho sensei's original student spoke Japanese at all, which meant for the five top students who opened their own school, there were five different pronunciations for everything. So, some 35+ years later, imagine how someone trained in Japanese language would respond to such linguistic debauchery. I always knew that Head Honcho sensei had problems in the translation department, but nothing could have prepared me for what I discovered this afternoon.

As I was researching kata for my written portion of my ni-dan test, came across Rohai-Dai, which in our book is translated to "crane on a rock". Of course, I knew this was wrong- a crane in Japanese is Tsuru. But herein lies a compounded fallacy, of which I will demonstrate in two parts- one, the difference in semantics for words pertaining to "bird", and two, the kata rohai versus the kata gankaku.

First off, the bird thing. If we were reference a non-particular bird on a rock as our kata name, we would use the word "tori"(鳥). However, just like in English, we may want to be specific about these things. A kata based on a dodo bird or a penguin, as humorous as it sounds, is not exactly what we want to be doing. No, we want to do a kata based on a graceful bird- a crane. We know that crane stance is "tsurashi dachi" (actually "crane foot stance") so it should stand to reason that, just from that piece of info, the word "rohai" is either a different word for the same bird (which I totally do not put past the Japanese) or it is a different bird entirely. Poking around this afternoon, I find that indeed it is a different bird. It's a heron. No, they aren't the same thing. I just looked it up to make sure :) So, Rohai- Dai as it is written in Japanese is 鷺大　(さぎーだい). And here is where things get really F'ed up. Other schools' translation for this kata is "vision of a heron/crane, major". Where is "vision"? No clue. If you Google Rohai-Dai, you will come up with such a kata...but it's not the one we call "crane on a rock". Not at all. We do a mis-mash that one and one more of which Rohai is the bastard son- Gankaku. What does "Gankaku" mean, by the way? Crane on a rock. GRRR!!!!

Now it is entirely possible that the kata's name morphed into the more popular Rohai- Dai name, just as Gankaku morphed from the name Chinto to sound less Chinese (something Funakoshi had done a lot when setting up modern karate as most of us know it today). I now for a fact that Sword Sensei did hardcore Goju before taking up our style, and Head Sensei in turn got a bit of training in Shotokan. So, knowing how kata is taught at my school, this what I theorize happened- Head Sensei starts Rohai-Dai with John Q. Student, and has to leave him to keep Sally Student from tearing down the walls. Sword Sensei comes along and says, "No, no! That's not it!" and finishes the kata with instruction on Gankaku. In fact, I can pinpoint the exact spot in this kata where Rohai-Dai turns into Gankaku. Add in review instruction from likes of someone like Happy Sensei who never reviews his katas and boom! A brand-new bastardized Rohai-Dai. In fact, lemme give it a proper name- "Shinseiji no Musuko no Kata de Tsurashi dachi" or "A Bastard son's kata with Crane Stances". I'm sure there's a grammar error in there somewhere, but, Hell? Nobody apparently cares about these things. So, anyway, John Q. Student teaches Sally Student and she teaches her little brother Lil' Bastard Student and so on.

It's not that I don't think Head Honcho Sensei didn't know. I don't think he cares. I think it would be too much effort at this point to change after forty years, or however long this particular kata has been in the system. Why to I assume this. Because for the past year or so I have been trying to help students learn to pronounce their vocabulary correctly, as well as learn a couple of key words so they don't have to memorize the whole damn book. I literally gave each kid a reference packet to help them study. Did any of them read it? No. Those lil' bastards do not care about what their kata means or where it came from! They just want their requirements for rank, and that's it.

On the bright side of this whole thing which has me down, I have learned that studying the kaji does give me some clue as to the kata itself. Not really the particular strokes in the kanji, but the readins themselves, lend me to interpret the kata different. For example, Gankaku is a crane, right? I see this kata to be taller and longer than Rohai Dai is, and hey- a Crane is taller than a Heron. Hmm...