Fritz hat geschrieben: ↑
Cichorei Kano hat geschrieben: ↑
Placing and "-h" after a vowel is something is an abandoned way of transcribing lengthened vowel.
Im Deutschen ist es eine gängige Methode um einen Vokal zu dehnen. Warum man diese unbedingt in diesem
jap. Begriff verwendet hat und in allen anderen die Dehnungskennzeichnung wegläßt, keine Ahnung ...
Cichorei Kano hat geschrieben: ↑
Why is "sode-guruma" under jūji-jime (erroneously spelled "juji-jime") ? Sode-guruma is not jūji-jime and does not required crossed wrists, etc, etc ...
Das ist ein sehr merkwürdiges Ding. Bei uns in Deutschland,
wird so eine Technik als Sode-Guruma angesehen:
http://www.sportschule-tokio.de/wuergeg ... ma.de.html
Das geht m.E. auf Kawaishi "My method of Judo" 3. Strangulation, 2. Serie ( S.163 in meinem Exemplar - von 1955?)
Die spannende Fragem die sich aufdrängt, ist: Warum wurde diese Technik so benannt u. mit "Sleeve wheel" übersetzt, wenn der Ärmel so gar nichts beiträgt?
Jedenfalls wurde in Deutschland diese Technik als eine Art Kreuzwürge klassifiziert.
Cichorei Kano hat geschrieben: ↑
What is "kagato" ? Do you mean "kakato" 踵, etc, etc ?
Auch diese Bezeichnung verdanken wir wohl dem Kawaishi-Buch: 5. Strangulation, 2. Serie) (S.165) -
dort übersetzt mit "Heel necklock" von daher wird wohl "kakato" gemeint sein.
Also so was: http://www.sportschule-tokio.de/wuergeg ... me.de.html
Hier drängt sich ebenfalls die Frage zwingend auf, wo hier die Ferse etwas beiträgt.
Wobei ich für mich hier dieses Rätsel dahingehend beantwortet habe, daß die Position noch nicht die Endposition
sein kann. Wenn man also Bsp. die Idee der hier gezeigten Armhebel-Kombination mit
dieser "Kagato"-Jime-Sache verknüpft, kommt eine ziemlich ekelige Würge raus, bei der Tori seine
Ferse durchaus benutzt ...
1. Over time various transcription (conversion of Japanese characters into Western script) have existed. The most well known are:
- "Nihon-shiki" or "Nippon-shiki" romanization (a system mandated by the Japanese government), later mostly replaced by "Kunreishiki" romanization, the government's replacement. What you have to realize here, is that most problems with this system are that the Japanese government specialists know Japanese well, but their knowledge of foreign languages, notably English, for which the transcription system really is intended is less.
- "Hepburn-shiki" (and its revised form). This is the system that is preferred and in use by academics and experts.
- "Wāpuro shiki". Wāpuro is the Japanized form of the English word "wordpro", an abbreviation of "word processor". In other words, it really is a virtual system intended to type Japanese on a word processor or computer. Our alphabet has 26 letters. Some Western languages use diacritical symbols, such as for example, the Umlaut in German or the Estzet. In French you find the joined "oe" and the ç, and the e's with accent (é, è), and letters with a circoflexus (^) on top, and also "à". In Hungarian you have a couple or more letters too. For this reason, when you buy a computer in Germany, France, Hungary, the keyboard will look slightly different, but not too much, because you can fairly easily combine keys. If you have a singl "^" key, you can combine that with the keys for "a", "o", instead of having separate "ô", "û", "â" keys.
However, Japanese has 52 characters in its alphabet. This is rather complicated to get on a single keyboard. Besides, there are two sets of alphabets: hiragana, and katakana. We can solve the problem of two alphabets, by assigning a double value to each keyboard key. To prevent that a Japanese keyboard would have to be much larger, inventive solutions had to be found. After all, you have to consider that the situation is even more complicated than I just described, because although there exist 2 alphabets, many words in Japanese are written by non-alphabetic characters of Chinese origin, so-called "kanji", with alphabetic symbols merely used to indicate conjugations and suffixes of verbs written in kanji, and similar.
To cut a long story short, to resolve this technical problem to process all this on a keyboard of a computer, this virtual transcription system"Wāpuro" was created, and in this system you have to type a long vowel o as "ou". So that is what I need to type on my keyboard to get my Japanese word processor to get the correct kanji on my screen. However, when I actually write a text that is romanized, I do not use this, as it is not meant to be written. However, the Japanese, especially Japanese schoolkids, are often confused by this and may actually write like this when trying to convert kanji into Western script. So they may actually write the name "Satou" like that. They shouldn't. It is how you have to type the name into a word processor, but it is not how one should write it or how it should appear in kanji.
Now, let me explain where the "h" after an "o" comes from. I have already told you that there exists a this government transcription system (the former Nhonshiki and current Kunreishiki). In htat system a long vowel letter "o" is really written with a circumflexus". However, since Japanese people like yourself may travel abroad, they need a passport, and that passport needs to be read by people who cannot read Japanese. Clearly, there are potential problems if various documents use different ways to write someone's name since people checking a passport might start thinking that perhaps it is not the correct passport. So, the Japanese government has made more tolerant exceptions for how someone's name is written in passports, as follows.
In addition, the following three "non-Hepburn rōmaji" (非ヘボン式ローマ字 hi-hebon-shiki rōmaji) methods of representing long vowels are authorized by the Japanese Foreign Ministry for use in passports.]
Oh for おお or おう (Hepburn ō).
Oo for おお or おう. This is valid JSL romanization. For Hepburn romanization, it is not a valid romanization if the long vowel belongs within a single word.
Ou for おう. This is also an example of wāpuro rōmaji.
In summary, the surname 佐藤 in Hepburn transcription is written "Satō" and this is how you should be writing it; eventually if you are writing online or in Notepad, or do not know how to add this macron on the "o", you can replace it by a circumflexus so it is written "Satô".
For me to get the kanji 佐藤 on my computer screen using a Japanese word processor, I have to type "Satou". You should, however, not actually write the name like that; it is just a technical way to enter the nam.
The Japanese passport of the person named 佐藤 or Satō, may read either "Satō" or "Satoh" because both are acceptable for passports.
So, when you see the word "Ohten-jime", you know that it is a long vowel, but "Ohten" is not a name of a person in a passport, so it is not acceptable, and should be written: Ōten-jime or Ôten-jime, and in Japanese is written 横転絞. For me to get this Japanese kanji on my computer screen using my Japanese word processor, I have to type: outen-jime.
I hope this clarifies the somewhat complicated situation of Japanese.
2. I am aware that that choke shown in the video is called sode-guruma-jime; that is not exclusive to Germany. That choke is also called sode-guruma-jime in most countries including Japan. However, it isn't because in this variation, the arms are crossed, that in every form of of sode-guruma-jime the arms or wrists are crossed. In other words, crossing the arms or wrists is not mandatory for sode-guruma-jime, it is just for that variation. However, for Jūji-jime crossing the arms or wrists IS mandatory, in every form (today), at least in the end position. One of the reasons Kōdōkan terminology has changed over the years to increase consistency. Many years ago, tsukkomi-jime was sometimes considered a variation of Jūji-jime, which was an inconsistency as it did not involve crossing the arms or wrists.
Now, one has to be careful and look very carefully because some variations for chokes with minor adjustment can suddenly fall into another choke. For example, the variation shown in the video which Fritz posted is sode-guruma-jime only is the sleeve is used. If control on the other hand is with both hands at a part of the lapel it cannot be sode-guruma-jime and does become Jūji-jime.
Similarly, a well-known variation to Ryōte-jime out of standing postion where tori goes to the ground, with slight adaptation can quickly become either Jūji-jime or katate-jime.
3. It is important to put Kawaishi's books in the right context. Firstly, these books were not written by Kawaishi, but by Jean Gailhat. Gailhat did not speak Japanese, and Kawaishi certaily was not (yet) fluent in French. So, Gailhat tried his best to write and guess-write what Kawaishi might have meant. In addition, as with many Japanese, the way they refer to something may not mean at all that they are using an official name. Oftentimes it is just a description. Imagine your native language is German, and I show an object they have never seen to 10 Germans. It is likely that the majority of you will come up with a word or term that more or less describes what I am showing, so that when among you you have to communicate about this object while the object itself is not present to point at, you will be able to do so while still understanding each other. That does not mean that the terms you use are the official name of the object I have shown to you. This is what often is, and certainly a long time ago was the case with many newaza techniques in jûdô. To put it simple, newaza was very little standardized and even today, besides katame-waza and katame-no-kata is still relatively little standardized although there do exist other terms and categories, but these are very little known by Westerers and also by most Japanese.
It is over time, especially with the creation of rules for promotion exams, that everything became more strict and standardized, because it no longer was a matter of doing effective jūdō, but of obtaining a passing or failing score. In fact the same phenomenon is (partly) responsible of what has happened to jūdō kata, where today we find many absurdities too that have nothing to do anymore with the core of jūdō kata or why they exist in jūdō or what their purpose is.
I wrote my previous post in a Socratic way as I wanted people to think about this. A list is not per definition useless. A list can be helpful if people actually feel helped by it. For example, imagine, you come across a name of a technique you have never heard of, and all you need to do is look in the list and immediately know what category of techniques it belongs to, what the alternative name is, and what the technique actually is, the probably such a list will be considered helpful by most people.
If on the other hand a list seems to be perceived as an encyclopedic exhaustive summary, it will by many be perceived rightly or wrongly as a kind of "look how much/how many techniques". The unfortunate consequence of this is that people will start looking for holes and inconsistencies, and the solidity of such lists will be tested. A critical approach is necessary, I think. A good example is the book by Daigo Toshirô that exists in multiple volumes in Germany, translated by the late Dieter Born. Those books are also "lists" (and more than lists), but those were done very well, critical, with lots of background research, and are perceived by virtually everyone as helpful.
There circulate lists of kata too, some where you get the feeling that the intent is neither practical nor academic, but mostly come across as having a somewhat different approach, but you start quickly wonder about the purpose as some of the lists lack any sense of critical approach. Any idiot can take a Japanese dictionary, take a word out of it, paste the term "no-kata" behind it, go on a tatami bow to the shômen and then to each other, and conclude: "look another kata !" What the sense of that would be, I don't know. Lists or categories in jūdō were created primarily with a pedagogical purpose; this applies for other well-known lists such as the gokyô, or the kata.
The purpose of what I write here is not to criticize people who are enthusiastic about jūdō and who are committed to help or improve things. I am only trying to make people think hard about whether what they propose will really "help" and facilitate, or on the other hand, perhaps, in spite of their noble motives, in the end not help so much.