Qigong vs. Chi Kung
What Spelling Of Qigong Is Correct?
The short and honest answer is that both Qigong and Ch’i Kung are in fact correct. The difference is just one of transliteration—or how the original Mandarin Chinese is written for an English speaker to be able to pronounce and understand. That said, there are some inherent issues when it comes to HOW the different types of transliteration are employed. Let’s take a look….
To start, bouncing around the internet, you’re likely to find Qigong spelled in a myriad of different ways. Culture, time, varying dialects of Mandarin, and even some obvious misunderstandings have produced a wide range of (often peculiar) spelling variations:
Interesting ways you may see Qigong spelled: chi gong, chigung, gigong, qui gong, and even wi gong!
The most common spellings you’ll encounter as an English speaker are qigong (or, qi gong) and chi kung. As mentioned, both are—mostly—correct. Here’s why:
“Qigong” is the transliteration of Mandarin Chinese using the Hanyu Pinyin system. The “Ch’i Kung” spelling is utilizing the Wade-Giles system.
Hànyǔ Pīnyīn 汉语拼音 translates as “language of the Han people” and “spoken sounds,” respectively. This system is usually simply referred to as “Pinyin.”
Pinyin was formalized as the standard system by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in 1982, adopted by the United Nations in 1986, and has been accepted by the majority of the world—most notably, China.
While Pinyin is the standard within China to transliterate the Mandarin language, there are hold-outs to the Wade-Giles system. This is largely due to the fact that it was developed using the Latin Alphabet by British scholars (guess their names!) for an English-speaking audience.
Pinyin, on the other hand, was developed by native Chinese speakers and with consideration of the Cyrillic Alphabet.
Here are some commonly used terms—and the spelling differences— you will likely encounter in the world of Qigong:
[Pinyin / Mandarin / Wade-Giles]
Qìgōng / 气功 / Ch’i Kung
Dào / 道 / T’ao
Tàijíquán / 太极拳 / T’ai Chi Ch’uan
Dāntián / 丹田 / Tan t’ien
Dǎo Yǐn / 导引 / T’ao Yin
Nèigōng / 内功 / Nei Kung
Nèidān / 内丹 / Nei Tan
Pinyin vs. Wade-Giles. Does it matter?
The simple and honest answer is no, it doesn’t really matter what transliteration system is used. Regardless of preference, each has some advantages and disadvantages:
Pinyin includes diacritic marks (tonal indicators) that can make it easier to understand how to pronounce the language, but is also—largely due to political alliances of the time—based on the Cyrillic Alphabet, which can be a little confusing to a native English speaker. That said, Pinyin has become the internationally recognized standard for transliteration.
Wade-Giles on the other hand, was built with the English speaker in mind, utilizing the Latin Alphabet—making for easy distinctions and clarity (and without all those confusing Q’s and Z’s everywhere!). Unfortunately, though, this system is less friendly (compared to Pinyin) when it comes to guidance on proper tonal pronunciation. And Mandarin is very much a tonal, and contextual language.
Add to this that the Wade-Giles system is larger based upon a specific northern dialect of Mandarin Chinese, it is not a big surprise that Pinyin is favored internationally.
Conflation Of Language Leads To Confusion
The modern academic issue is not really which system is better, or even preferred—but rather that mixing of the systems leads to confusion, and in some cases, even cultural appropriation.
It’s not far off-mark to compare the differences of the two systems to Imperial vs. Metric systems of measurement. Neither is inherently wrong or right—they’re just different methods for achieving a similar goal.
However, problems do arise if you try to use both systems concurrently. If you measure something partially in inches, and partially in centimeters the likelihood of a mistake or misunderstanding increase greatly.
While not technically wrong, using both inches and centimeters appears odd and confusing as it violates accepted systems of standards.
The same is true of “Taoist Qigong,” or “Daoist Ch’i Kung” (Daoist and Qigong = Pinyin; Taoist and Ch’i Kung = Wade-Giles).
Unfortunately, conflation of the two systems is rather widespread these days. You will commonly find folks advertising that they teach Qigong (Pinyin) and Tai Chi (Wade-Giles).
We ourselves actually use those very spellings on our Qigong vs. Tai Chi page—with explanation—to make a point on this very subject.
While spelling is certainly not the end of the world, the appropriate and clear use of language is important—particularly when borrowing from the rich traditions and history of other cultures.
Consistent misuse, at best points to a lack of basic education—and at worst, willful ignorance.
This becomes particularly problematic when compounded with other cultural-confusing terms like Zen (Japanese), Yoga (Vedic—Sanskrit), Dzogchen (Tibetan), etc…
Conclusion
At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter what transliteration system is used. However, consistency—to maintain intelligible clarity—is rather important, and the most culturally appropriate thing to do.
As an international school, we here at Red Thread use, and adhere to the Pinyin system. Regardless of the methods you find preferential, it pays dividends to educate yourself and be consistent. We here are a bit unnerved and skeptical of Qigong training programs that don’t seem to comprehend the language of the practices they teach.
And you, like us, may want to ask yourself: What kind of education are you looking for?
We strongly recommend that you do your homework and get some knowledge under your belt so that you can make discerning decisions for yourself.
And basic terminology is a great place to start!
Want To Learn More?
