Talk:功夫

Min Dong

@Wyang Is the Min Dong also pronounced gĕ̤ng-hŭ? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Added. Wyang (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"kung fu is now used by Chinese to also refer to martial arts, but only since the late twentieth century"

@Wyang, Tooironic, is this true? I feel like it's been used in Cantonese (and maybe Hakka) before then. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the usage notes... is it referring to this word or the English word kung fu? Wyang (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: I think it's talking about Chinese. The book Meihouwang cited when he added the note reads (p. 9):

“Kung-fu” is the Romanization for the Chinese characters 功夫 in the Wade-Giles system, and “gongfu” in the Pinyin system that is currently the most widely used, though “gongfu” has thus far not entered English dictionaries. In Classical, Literary, and Modern Chinese, the term is not specific to the martial arts, however, meaning effort, skill, accomplishment, or a period of time. But by 1984, “gongfu” was indeed used in the particular sense of martial arts in a Mainland Chinese newspaper. The use of Kung-fu or gongfu in English may be due to a misunderstanding or mistranslation of modern Chinese, possibly through movie subtitles or dubbing. In any case, it was not a word used in Chinese to refer directly to the martial arts until the late twentieth century. Chinese speakers seldom use the term gongfu, except when speaking English, where it seems to accord with contemporary English usage.

The newspaper refers to 人民日报:

也有画中国‘功夫’的，画面上拳击格斗，棍棒相迎，飞脚踢刀，好不热闹

Searching on Google Books shows there are certainly uses before 1984, but I don't know how far back we can trace it. In Cantonese, it is certainly quite common to say 打功夫, and I don't think this usage is influenced by English. I'm pretty sure it's also common in Hakka and Min Nan. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the research Justin. I think it is probably safest and easiest to just remove that part of the usage notes. Wyang (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have no idea. Let me refer this to the experts here. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)