Talk:Jian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] page name
Why don't we move this to Jiàn? This word is not seriously used in English, so usage isn't an issue — just correctness, and "jian" without the tone mark is not fully correct Hanyu pinyin. Chameleon 22:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. Fyrius 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Adding the diacritical mark does make typing in the correct name a bit difficult for most users; this is not a problem for those who are only browsing, but it will lead to an inordinate number of redirects which only the knowledgeable few will be able to fix. Redirects aren't bad, but they are messy. I'd prefer to keep most diacritical names at a non-diacritical location, however technically incorrect that may be. -- Visviva 06:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image
I added a photograph of a jian I own. It's not the clearest image on the Web, but it's the most copyright-proof image I could think of. If you think it's not copyright-proof enough, though, perhaps we could use this hand-drawn ballpoint picture I drew of another of my own Jian; I'm sure there's no copyrights on that. Anyway, I think an image would be helpful for those that have never seen a jian and would otherwise need to picture it from this description. Fyrius 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- So now we've got this as the first image on the page. Does the Jian come in multiple varieties, or am I right when I think that this doesn't look like a Jian at all? If it's just a less common form of the Jian, I think the images should change positions (normal Jian at the top, other Jian a little further down), to avoid confusion as to what a Jian commonly looks like. Fyrius 15:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Replaced the new image by the old, because it had no relevance to the topic. Fyrius 17:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- So now the old picture has been deleted for lack of a source, and the jian article has become imageless. What are we going to do about it? Put the ballpoint sketch on it? Fyrius 10:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would think that just adding source info to the old picture would work - the deletion was by a bot looking for sourceless pics. Ergative rlt 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's a photograph taken by me of a sword I bought at a market. The sword itself has two Eastern (probably Chinese, its box says 'made in China') characters on the blade with an (R) above it, so I suppose that's the brand name. I can't read it, but here's a sketch of what they look like. So I'm afraid we'll need someone who can read Chinese to determine the brand.
-
- I don't think it's a matter of the brand - it's that when the image was uploaded no information was given to what the image's source was. Looking at images in other articles it seems that just placing in the Source field "Photo taken by me of my property on this date" or something similar would do. Then again, I've never uploaded images, so I'd also send a note to an admin. Ergative rlt 21:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, the brand is quite literally the source, but I guess you're right. I'll see if I can find the right code to indicate this. Fyrius 10:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It's done. With some help I found the right licensing code, so now it should be okay to re-upload it. Fyrius 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Here's my own pictures of my 2 Jian, and was wondering if you might prefer this one:
]
-
- Nice.
- The background is less distracting than the one in my photo (= the present one), and there's more room between the swords and the edges of the picture. That's good. On the other hand, the lighting isn't as clear. It seems a bit dark, which makes the details somewhat hard to make out.
- I don't know which one is most suitable. Does anyone else have a preference? Fyrius (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] disambig Jian?
The entirety of the article is on the chinese sword 劍 jian except for two sentences about a garden master and a novel. It is unsure if these two other meanings are about the same usage of the character 劍. There are 80+ other chinese characters that pronounce as jian. If these two other meanings are unrelated except for their sound, then they should be pulled out of the article into a disambig page. Kowloonese 00:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have never heard "jian4" 劍 also means a garden master. I suspect the person who wrote about the garden master meant 监 "jian1" as in "guard" or "master". I'm deleting that line. According to my dictionary of classical chinese, 劍 jian4 can mean: (1)b ancient chinese weapon, for carrying when travelling. Two-edged, with spine, short handle. (2) the art of swordsmanship, (3) to kill with a sword, (4) to carry under one's arm. --Sumple 10:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Here are some uses from the unihan search database:
拔劍 ba2jian4 bat6 gim3 to draw a sword; to whip out a a sword
寶劍 bao3 jian4 bou2 gim3 a double-edged sword
刀光劍影 daoguang-jian4ying3 dou1 gwong1 gim3 ying2 engaged in hot battle; a heated combat (usually between individual swordsmen)
短劍 duan3 jian4 dyun2 gim3 dagger
掛劍 gua4jian4 gwa3 gim3 to hang the precious sword on its admirer's grave--a last gift to show one's memory of the deceased
慧劍 hui4jian4 wai6 gim3 (in Buddhism) the sword of wisdom which cuts away illusion
慧劍斬情絲 hui4jian4 zhan3 qing2si wai6 gim3 jaam2 ching4 si1 to cut the thread of carnal love with the sword of wisdom
劍 jian4 gim3 (double-edged) sword
劍術 jian4 shu4 gim3 seut6 fencing
劍拔弩張 jian4ba2-nu3zhang gim3 bat6 nou5 jeung1 (literally) with swords unsheathed and bows drawn--ready to; fight; ready to destroy each other (said of tense international situation)
劍及履及 jian4ji2-lyu3 ji2 to perform a task with full vigor and urgency
劍客 jian4ke4 gim3 haak3 a swordsman; a fencing master
劍蘭 jian4lan2 gim3 laan4 gladiolus
劍橋 Jian4qiao2 gim3 kiu4 Cambridge, England
劍俠 jian4xia2 a wandering swordsman (in search of adventures); a knighterrant
刻舟求劍 ke4 zhou qiu2 jian4 to be stubbornly unimaginative; a very stupid way of doing things
口蜜腹劍 kou3mi4-fu4jian4 hau2 mat6 fuk1 gim3 sweet words but a wicked heart; to flatter another while ready to plant a sword in his back
弩張劍拔 nu3zhang-jian4ba2 nou5 jeung1 gim3 bat6 (literally) with bows drawn and swords unsheathed--War is likely to start at any moment
佩劍 pei4jian4 pui3 gim3 to wear a sword at the waist; a sword one carries
太極劍 tai4 ji2 jian4 taai3 gik6 gim3 a kind of traditional Chinese sword-play
-
- --Fire Star 06:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] metric - english
can someone mention the measurements in in english measurements? not all of us know metric :) --Phil 16:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- makes no sense. can't expect other ppl to cater to you if you close yourself off to standard international units.
-
- How about giving metric *and* non-metric measurements? Rather obvious, isn't it? ;) Fyrius 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- There you go. I'm not sure if weight is usually measured in pounds in non-metric systems, but I think it'll do. Fyrius 18:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I see I made some mistakes with the inches and feet measurements, putting the decimal symbol of the pounds three positions back. ^_^;; Mea culpa, I'm not used to the system. Fyrius 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redundant information
The extra information on tassels use was moved to the Use section as it was about use, as opposed to construction; reinserting this into the Parts section led to directly redundant material (please read comments). Also, I toned down the wording as the additions assumed the truth of one particular interpretation of the tassel's function (an interpretation that is by no means unanimous) and made unjustifiably broad statements about xingyi and Yang taiji. Ergative rlt 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed "Iron" as a reference material in the evolution of the Jian. Any Iron that could be considered an advance over Chinese bronze of the Qin/Han period was carbon enhanced, therefor Steel. Dainas 02:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy/Sources in the "Use" section
The flexbility of the blade also makes it a poor defensive tool against heavier weapons because it is virtually impossible to effectively block with it: blocking with the flat of the blade as one would normally do with a sword would merely allow a weapon to bend it and pass through while blocking with the edge of the sword would severely damage the blade. This flexibility also makes it difficult to handle offensively since an attack must compensate for any fluctuations in the blade from sudden movements. Despite these flaws, in the hands of an extremely agile practitioner, the jian makes for an extremely effective weapon, allowing for a wide variety of attacks, including swipes as well as stabs. This sets it apart from its European counterpart, the rapier, which is primarily only used for stabbing and has a much more limited capability.
Are there sources for the above? I own a modern jian based upon historical models; Functional jian are not "flexible" in the way that jian shown in movies such as Crouching Tiger often are. Similarly, jian that are "whippy" such as those often used in wushu or even purchasable for lightweight training tools for jian forms in e.g. taijiquan are not the same as historical quality weapons. While the above is correct in that blocking with an edge is undesirable, a jian doesn't just bend over or out of the way. They are quite sturdy. What is meant by "flexibility" in the quoted passage?
The forms I have studied show blocking on the thickest part of the blade, which is near to the guard. A dao (sabre) blow, as powerful as it is is not going to flex a realistic jian "out of the way". A good sword is of course somewhat flexible, but for the purposes of resilience. This is the purpose of the inserted edge or differential hardening techniques. The edge is hard enough to stay relatively sharpened, while the spine is resilient enough to accept blows without being overly fragile.
Further, "having to compensate for any fluctuations in the blade ..." Historically accurate jian do not 'wobble' or whip about when you are swinging them, even with considerable (read: cutting) force. If they did, it seems like they would be almost useless as weapons. They can experience fluctuation when cutting a reasonably thick or hard target, but so does any sword. Jian can cut as well as dao... See Google video search for "GRTC" to show examples of cutting of bamboo and soaked mats with both jian and dao. Cutting with my own jian has resonance vibration if the cut is off the ideal line, but the jian does not get remotely out of control.
With respect to "swipes as well as stabs" -- these are not particularly academic terms. More appropriate would be "cuts as well as thrusts", as this keeps with general sword nomenclature. I would also like to see evidence of the rapier as the "counterpart" to the jian. Given that the jian is closer in looks and length to a "typical" European medieval two edged sword than to a rapier.
Overall, perhaps the "Use" section needs expanding and differentiating between functional and historical variants of the weapon, plus a section for other modern variations used in wushu demonstrations or as non-functional 'sword placeholders' for learning martial arts forms. I think it would be well to be careful of making assumptions based upon what is seen in film, what is taught in some martial arts schools, and what is available as "Genuine Chinese Swords" in marketplaces vs what is historically observed.
For an example reference, see "Chinese Swordsmanship, the Yang Family Taiji Jian Tradition" by Scott M Rodell.
Dan Fleet 05:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Although I concur with regards to the issue of jian not being whippy of flexible in traditional design I have to take slight disagreement with the comment that jian could cut as well as dao. The jian and the dao are different tools and perform different jobs. The hilt-concentrated weight, taper and sharp point, along with differential sharpening which was a common (though not universal) feature of the jian made it best for stabbing. The tip-concentrated weight and curve of the dao made it best for chopping. Although both blades can be seen as having cutting as a secondary function I feel from both personal experience and theoretical knowlege that the dao is slightly better for cutting than the jian. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Another feature of the jian is that it is (was) used a lot for drawing cuts, making contact with the opponent and drawing backwards (or sometimes pushing forwards) for a slice similar to the way a scalpel slices, to cut tendons, veins, etc. just below the surface of joints. Of course I don't have a source for this yet, unfortunately, it was oral instruction in sword class... ;-) --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Renaming article
I propose we rename this article Jian {sword} and have other uses of the (common) Chinese morpheme jian, including this one, listed on a disambiguation page. --Fire Star 火星 23:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's what Wiktionary is for. If you do this, you will find you run out of content after probably the second page. ALTON .ıl 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sword weight
The introduction says that an average Jian is 70 cm (28 in) and 700-900g (1.5-2 lb). How could a metal sword more than 2 feet long weigh just 2 pounds? -- kenb215 talk 04:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some wushu swords are very thin so that they swish when forms are done quickly. Our nickname for them is "tinfoil weapons". Traditional weapons are much heavier. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not only are these dimensions and weights correct - and for traditional swords, not wushu props - they are quite unremarkable. Swords in general weigh far less than what popular culture suggests. Ergative rlt (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Agreed. There are some da and bagua dao that are much heavier, but the weights given in this article seem about right. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
