The ARMA and everyone else.

[Mark Driggs]

Didn't John Clements meet and spar with Paul MacDonald back in '99 on his trip to the UK? From what I gathered, it was a very positive exchange.

As for titles, it is important that we understand what is meant and associated with the broad meaning of 'master'. After all, isn't the title 'Mister' a variant of 'master'?

I think that a modern day Master at Arms would not be equivalent to one during Fiore's or Liechtenauer's time period. It would be presumptuous for anyone today to equate himself to those who lived, fought, and killed with the sword regularly.

It could be that Paul MacDonald's rank of Master at Arms is similar to what we in ARMA have in mind for a Provost rank, that being mastery in at least 3-5 weapons and demonstrating advanced knowledge and research. Not to mention, Playing the Prize with each seperate weapon.

As I recall, Paul MacDonald is a staunch advocate of the right to bear arms (which happen to be swords) for training purposes. The UK has enacted some reactionary legislation because of the rash of 'samurai sword' attacks the past few years. Some of the laws require registration or ban any types of swords. I commend Paul for his efforts in battling such ignorant legislation.

Mark Driggs
ARMA Provo

[Mike Cartier]

As I recall, Paul MacDonald is a staunch advocate of the right to bear arms (which happen to be swords) for training purposes. The UK has enacted some reactionary legislation because of the rash of 'samurai sword' attacks the past few years requiring registration or bans on many types of swords. I commend Paul for his efforts in battling such ignorant legislation.

Yes good for you Mr Mcdonald, that is some silly legislation.

[Sam Nankivell]

Actually, I think ARMA should be trying to co-operate more with the IMAF. I think that an international accredation body for Western martial arts would be quite beneficial in terms of quality control. The IMAF only acknowledges the title Masters-At-Arms for living martial arts that can show a direct line of descent (like Classical fencing and Savate). For reconstructive Martial martial arts (i.e. those without a direct line of descent), they only acknowledge the title "Acknowledged Instructor", not Master-at-Arms.

This means that if Paul MacDonald has the title Master-At-Arms, then it only applies to his knowledge of classical fencing, not pre 18th Century fencing.

This idea seems to fall pretty much in line with ARMA's philosophy, so shouldn't we be trying to co-operate more with these people?

To Mr. MacDonald: I understand that ARMA has apparently had some issues in the past (while WMA was still in its infancy) with some clearly (and I mean quite, quite clearly) unqualified people taking the title of Master-At-Arms in Medieval and Renaissance Martial arts. From these experiences most of ARMA has been quite skeptical of any claims to the title "Master-At-Arms".

[Francisco Uribe]

Actually, I think ARMA should be trying to co-operate more with the IMAF..

with alkl due respect, this is a really bad idea.
Why?
Just an example.

James Loriega, author of "Sevillian Steel" has been acknowleged as a IMAF master in navaja.
It happens that at a FISAS meeting some spanish guys asked him about his navaja school. By the way the spanish guys are students derived from Lupo Sinclair.
http://www.esgrimaantigua.com/forum/vie ... es+loriega
http://www.esgrimaantigua.com/forum/vie ... ht=loriega

The fact is that he had to aknowledge that the actual physical place of the school he attended for 7 summers did not exist, and that he had adapted his ninjitsu stuff to navaja.
Sevilla has been combed by a lot of sevillians looking to learn what Loriega claims, but the school is simply not there.

My questions are...
who then gave master rank to Loriega? Martinez and his IMAF body?
'Cause this did not happen in this fictitious school
Why is there this need to make up lies?
What does this tells about the character of the IMAF and its associates?

All I can say is that my own personal inquires about this organization, turn out dirt and shadows.

[Shane Smith]

This idea seems to fall pretty much in line with ARMA's philosophy, so shouldn't we be trying to co-operate more with these people?

Why is the burden upon ARMA to accept the structure and habits of other groups to our detriment? Why must we destroy our proven-effective way of doing things in order to be thought at parity with others while the others make no concession? We are still the largest organization of our kind by far and our motivation is ever set upon the development and excercise of effective, historically-accurate fencing skills.

I respect the members of several other groups the world over, but I also recognize that we do things a bit differently. I do not expect them to fall in line with me and if I disagree with them on some trifles, I do not adopt their ways. Still, I respect them and their research. They are my fellow scholars and students regardless of what title they give themselves. That is enough. I make every opportunity to meet and train with my peers. I've trained with Matt Eastons group in London and I have a pretty high regard for them truth be told. I admire the work that guys like the Exiles, Ochs and the like are doing. Still ,they do things their way and we do them ours.

We already have a historically-inspired "ranking structure"(although I hate that term and all the foolish imagery it drags in with it) that recognizes individual excellence and achievement. Scholar, General Free Scholar, Senior Free Scholar and Provost; each is a title of earned honor and clear distinction ,yet you will note the title "Master" does not appear.

It would seem that if we all agree that none of us are qualified to fill the shoes of those Masters of days long-past, ARMA's ranking structure is a most reasonable and defensible structure that leaves little room for confusion and misunderstandings among our peers or our fellow researchers in other groups throughout the world. It just makes too much sense and leaves little room for romanticism and mirky claims to title. If you find yourself across the circle from a Senior Free Scholar for instance, you're facing a guy who has proven himself time and again with sword and wit. He is exceptional without a doubt.

In our organization, you must play your prize against your peers and commanding performance in adversarial freeplay and a deep knowledge of the subject matter at hand are pre-requisite to the winning of your prize. ARMA is not a group that caters to the group-hug mentality so much as the concept of exceptional individualism within the common bond of respect earned at the point of one-anothers swords. ARMA does not exist for the sake of the Director or the granting of titles, it is exists for the growth of the skills of the membership within it and the broadening of the knowledge of our craft in the mainstream and among our peers throughout the world.

[Sam Nankivell]

Actually, I think ARMA should be trying to co-operate more with the IMAF..

with alkl due respect, this is a really bad idea.
Why?
Just an example.

James Loriega, author of "Sevillian Steel" has been acknowleged as a IMAF master in navaja.
It happens that at a FISAS meeting some spanish guys asked him about his navaja school. By the way the spanish guys are students derived from Lupo Sinclair.
http://www.esgrimaantigua.com/forum/vie ... es+loriega
http://www.esgrimaantigua.com/forum/vie ... ht=loriega

The fact is that he had to aknowledge that the actual physical place of the school he attended for 7 summers did not exist, and that he had adapted his ninjitsu stuff to navaja.
Sevilla has been combed by a lot of sevillians looking to learn what Loriega claims, but the school is simply not there.

My questions are...
who then gave master rank to Loriega? Martinez and his IMAF body?
'Cause this did not happen in this fictitious school
Why is there this need to make up lies?
What does this tells about the character of the IMAF and its associates?

All I can say is that my own personal inquires about this organization, turn out dirt and shadows.

This new information is disconcerting to say the least. Wow, If what you say is true, then I certainley retract my previous ideas. Thanks for the eye-opener.

[Sam Nankivell]

This idea seems to fall pretty much in line with ARMA's philosophy, so shouldn't we be trying to co-operate more with these people?

Why is the burden upon ARMA to accept the structure and habits of other groups to our detriment? Why must we destroy our proven-effective way of doing things in order to be thought at parity with others while the others make no concession? We are still the largest organization of our kind by far and our motivation is ever set upon the development and excercise of effective, historically-accurate fencing skills.

I respect the members of several other groups the world over, but I also recognize that we do things a bit differently. I do not expect them to fall in line with me and if I disagree with them on some trifles, I do not adopt their ways. Still, I respect them and their research. They are my fellow scholars and students regardless of what title they give themselves. That is enough. I make every opportunity to meet and train with my peers. I've trained with Matt Eastons group in London and I have a pretty high regard for them truth be told. I admire the work that guys like the Exiles, Ochs and the like are doing. Still ,they do things their way and we do them ours.

We already have a historically-inspired "ranking structure"(although I hate that term and all the foolish imagery it drags in with it) that recognizes individual excellence and achievement. Scholar, General Free Scholar, Senior Free Scholar and Provost; each is a title of earned honor and clear distinction ,yet you will note the title "Master" does not appear.

It would seem that if we all agree that none of us are qualified to fill the shoes of those Masters of days long-past, ARMA's ranking structure is a most reasonable and defensible structure that leaves little room for confusion and misunderstandings among our peers or our fellow researchers in other groups throughout the world. It just makes too much sense and leaves little room for romanticism and mirky claims to title. If you find yourself across the circle from a Senior Free Scholar for instance, you're facing a guy who has proven himself time and again with sword and wit. He is exceptional without a doubt.

In our organization, you must play your prize against your peers and commanding performance in adversarial freeplay and a deep knowledge of the subject matter at hand are pre-requisite to the winning of your prize. ARMA is not a group that caters to the group-hug mentality so much as the concept of exceptional individualism within the common bond of respect earned at the point of one-anothers swords. ARMA does not exist for the sake of the Director or the granting of titles, it is exists for the growth of the skills of the membership within it and the broadening of the knowledge of our craft in the mainstream and among our peers throughout the world.

Beautifully put. Very intelligent responses like this are few and far between on the internet. I definitely agree with your point that we don't need to seek legitimcy from anyone, we should seek it only through skill, historical accuracy and efficiency. In truth, I think that we don't have to agree with eachother, but we shouldn't be out to badmouth groups who use different methods either.

You have certainly disproven some of my previous assumptions. Thanks for answering my points and questions and easing the concerns of an ARMA forum noob .

[Francisco Uribe]

This new information is disconcerting to say the least. Wow, If what you say is true, then I certainly retract my previous ideas. Thanks for the eye-opener.

My Dear Sam,

I make a point in always telling the truth, because I see too many people around "coloring reality".

You're more than welcome to visit the AEEA forum and Inquire about this yourself. The AEEA members are more than proficient in english and they can tell you the story themselves.
What is remarkable is that even being related to the IMAF, the AEEA has no problem in telling things like they are.
Actually they brought the point of Loriega's credentials to (Iseem to remmeber) Martinez and Sinclair, who till this day have done nothing to dissociate themselves from a guy who lies about his leranings and mastery on the Iberic art of navaja.
So what does that tell you about IMAF?

I can not but agree with Shane's feelings on this one. Why should we level down? Why should we be less, while at the same time, pretend to be more?
That is not ethical.

Mr. Mcdonald, I'm still eager to know about this most august body of medieval and rennaisance fight masters that granted you the title of Maestro.
It is a great diservice to the community you say to care so much about, to hide this most important information.
I would like to put myself under the guidance of so Illustrious people.

[s_taillebois]

M. Smith,
Quite correct about the care which the rankings for ARMA were chosen. M. Clement's and the others who started ARMA (and it's predecessors) possessed admirable foresight in their choice of terms.

From the locations people have listed on posting, that's another contribution to the situation here. Whatever Mssr's Martinez, MacDonald and company are advocating and practicing, or the others posting herein (including myself); the distances involved leave little more than words to test the defensibility of their contentions. Perhaps if all met, and spoke and sparred in person, some commonality might be reached. What is source of contention here, is in some regards, words.

One element that does seem to be in agreement, is that M. McDonald seems to have taken a stand against the restrictions pending and emplaced in the UK. Whatever the other differences of opinions about the sword arts, in that one arena M. McDonald and co, do have uncontestable credibility. Here in the US, in general, the fight to merely keep our swords and the arts attendant, has not yet occurred. Hence discourse, but not discord, might be the most advisible tack when involved with those who might have different approaches to the arts of the sword.

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Dexter,

You seem sure in your words, but I am quite unsure as to what you are implying.

I have not claimed that the Masters have a living lineage to the medieval German masters. There are a few alone who can claim lineage back to the 18th century, let alone the 15th-16th masters that I can only assume you refer to.

What I do say is that Masters today profess the Art from its very foundations, and that the Art has never left us.

What modern marvels have changed that Art over time? Not one.

The point that many here seem to have missed thus far is that the principles of the Art are drawn from and based upon principles of Nature.
Nature both physical and metaphysical, that have predated mankind, remain unchanged today and shall exist for all time.

And if it exists....it can be known. If it can be known, it can be understood, if understood, applied, and if one is further posessed of the ability to clearly transmit this knowledge and understanding in practice to others willing to learn, then these are the particular requirements of the fencing master with regard to the Art of Defence, the Very same today as it ever has been.


Mr. Smith,

You quote my words and then suggest that I have referred to standards "that a man and his fellows have established for themselves".

I urge you to read my words once again, namely -

The Art is the standard. And the Art has never left us.

And the Art is not born of man, but he is born of it.


Mr. Uribe,

Why would I here willingly present my paper qualification for the scrutiny of all, or details of its earning? To have it shot at as another target?

Mr. Olsen has provided some details here that are available to the World given a cursory search.

In any case, this thread should not be about nor even concern myself, but greater matters.


Mr. Pleasant,

The greatly assumptive and accusational tones of several ARMA members on this thread towards several matters can certainly in my eyes and mind be regarded as less than rational.

I have been nothing but open, honest, direct and rational in my words and received a barrage of flack in return. What else would a rational man make of such a welcome?

Regarding proof - If you examine my past words here, you will observe that I am providing proof in answer to concerns.

Proof by definition.

You claim that "statements (ie. claims) are not proof"

Neither are they the same thing. What great claims do I make here but state my position and that of others in relation to the Art?

If you shall not (as you make clear) accept my words and require further proof, my ability is my proof. My ability to Live up to my qualification when its skills are called upon and to strive with all I am to Live up to the Art.

If you really want to personally experience that, my Academy doors are open.


Mr. Dillon,

My comment carries no cloak of mystery. It stands True and clear enough for any man to understand.


Mr. Driggs and Cartier,

My thanks for your support towards the battle of legislation in Scotland, which is still unfinished business.

I would with reference to comments of Mr. Driggs point out that not all masters killed regularly, if at all ever, with the Sword.

Any historical fencing master was a master of....... Fencing!
Not the weapon.
The same has been true for Fiore, Capo Ferro, Angelo to name a few.

All historical fencing masters have simply been masters of fencing employing the contemporary tools of expressing the Art in that time. The same job today is undertaken by historical fencing masters.

That we have qualified as such does not oblige us to maintain a professional kill tally, more´s the pity


Mr. Nankivell,

An ARMA - IMAF co-operation shall never happen due to fundamental differences in approach and direction of the organisations. This does not mean that the members of one group or other shuns and spurns the rest of the World.

We might all be very exclusive but very alone if that were the case.

I must address the suggestion that my title "only applies to his knowledge of classical fencing, not pre 18th Century fencing."

My title applies to fencing, the Art, not a weapon.

The principle weapon that I mostly teach and the Academy is founded upon is C17th-C18th backsword and you are welcome to train in this at the Academy anytime.

I understand the ARMA concerns with the title, as you point out, and it is my hope that my words and open explanations here might address some of these concerns and lead to some understanding concerning the title and those that legitimately hold it today.


Mr. Uribe,

You already seem to be telling us about the "character of the IMAF and its associates".
As far as you are concerned.

Your tale and insinuations not the Truth of the whole story nor an accurate assessment upon the character, professional integrity, intention and individual merits of each member and of the organisation.

I can only comment that we see in All things what resides in our Hearts at any time.


Mr. Smith,

I agree entirely.

No organisation at any level should ever feel obliged to adapt just because other groups, approaches, practices and philosophies exist.
But we should always build upon what we are.

What works for you is best for you.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Francisco Uribe]

Mr. Uribe,

Why would I here willingly present my paper qualification for the scrutiny of all, or details of its earning? To have it shot at as another target?

It happens Mr Mcdonald that as a graduate student I had many times to be able to defend my credentials succesfully. Even when applying to jobs I I had to demonstrate to my future supervisor, the level of competency that he required from me.

That is exactly what credentials and paper qualifications are for. a Proof to back up one's claims regarding certain area of expertise.
Nowadays in science is rather easy to determine what schools are good and which ones not so. But if I claim to have attended such and such schools I may be very well asked for papers to demosntrate it.
If I'm sure of my worth, I will be certainly proud of my accomplishment and more than willing to show my big beautiful diploma, granted by a respected intitution.

But I can see clearly that is not the case with you. If you felt backed up with serious facts, you would not hesitate in show us your credentials, Beacause nobody could shoot down solid paper evidence.
You cannot, you do not, you're willing not.
As thea scientific scholar I happen to be, please do not expect me to take you seriously then.

Present your credentials or loose any right and claim to them.

Mr. Uribe,

You already seem to be telling us about the "character of the IMAF and its associates". As far as you are concerned.

No, sir you're wrong.
I did not tell anything about the character of your organization. I just merely state some facts and posed myself a question.
However, if you like I could post a long list of conclusions regarding the ethics of this sort of behavior.

Your tale and insinuations

Tale? Insinuations?
First I'm not insinuating anything. I am stating facts
Second is is not a tale and this information was discovered by people related to your own organization

not the Truth of the whole story nor an accurate assessment upon the character, professional integrity, intention and individual merits of each member and of the organisation.

You wrapp around with truth as if it were a blanket.

Character and professional integrity are proven by deed, not by word.
At this moment I can imply 3 masters of your organization in this "situation" Martinez, Sinclair and Loriega. Nobody mentioned you
If you so care about truth and ethics, now that you know, and considering your own standing with the people invloved I invite you to demonstrate your own character and figure out this ugly situation for the rest of us.
Why would Matrinez and Sinclair testify for Loriega's made-up mastery, if they now the truth about it.
Why you do not seem at least puzzled by these situation uncovered by people related to your own?
Why do you not even consider to lok furter into this, but just preffer to say that I am the one who lies?

No sir, you are mistaken, ARMA and IMAF will never colaborate not because of different orientations, but because of a matter of simple ethics.
As you like to talk plainly, so do I.... I do not like liars, nor will relate to them.
it is not , as you so poorly stated, a matter of points of views.

[John_Clements]

Take it elsewhere, Paul. You’ll get no opportunity here for pushing your “secret ninja maestro lineage” scam. This tired “maestro lineage” claim with Martinez and Lupo has earned you little more than continued contempt and ridicule. It’s a farce, it’s a joke, it’s an embarrassment to this subject, and its’ a fraud. It insults our intelligence, makes a mockery of our heritage and diminishes efforts to reestablish the craft with integrity. It does a disservice to the sincerity so many are trying to bring to this craft. It may satisfy a handful of ignorant neophytes out there never trained in modern fencing who want some shallow prestige by association, but it doesn't work among real fighters and serious scholars. It will not be tolerated on the ARMA Forum.

You should be ashamed. You are a bright guy and a nice guy, but your continued allegiance to this shredded "maestro" fraud shows you to be a fool deserving of no respect.

John

[Matthew_Anderson]

Mr. Macdonald,

It's a little difficult for me to discern exactly what you are saying in your posts due to your use of rather vague language and flowery generalities. You also seem reluctant to give any specifics regarding the actual training/testing that led to being awarded your title. I for one would really like to know exactly what you had to do to be awarded the title of "Master at Arms" after only four years of study. Not because I'm accusing you of anything, I'm just really interested. It took me over five years of study and a rigorous examination and prize playing just to qualify as a Senior Free Scholar, a title which really means nothing outside of ARMA, and that was only for one weapon!

From the IMAF website:

"The IMAF Masters at Arms are Western Martial Arts practitioners and teachers who have created a complete teaching methodology and have studied at least one traditional western armed system under a Master coming from a living tradition and lineage of those disciplines that have still survived in the western world, in their most possible original forms, such as Classical and Duelling fencing, Knife or Stick fighting, not influenced by modern sport systems or new interstyle forms".

Can you tell us something about your particular lineage and the complete teaching methodology you created? That's a pretty impressive credential and I'd like to know more about it if you're willing to share the information.

And just to clarify what I THINK you are saying:

You believe that fencing is fencing, no matter what the weapon right? I would agree with this to a certain extent, providing you have some training/experience with a particular weapon, many basic principles are universal and apply to many weapons. Once you get competent with one, you can learn others more quickly as you don't have to re-learn basic concepts such as range and timing.

Here's where you lost me. You seem to be saying that by virtue of your title of Master, and because of your skill with 17th/18thc backsword, you are also competent to fence with and teach any and all weapons, such as longsword, sword and buckler, staff, pole weapons, etc? This I don't buy at all. Although many principles are similar and can be applied to many different weapons, there is no substitute for lots of training with a specific weapon. Certainly the old masters were indeed simply "masters of fencing" as you say, but that meant they had trained with and mastered many different weapons and probably played their prize with each after many years of training and bouting.

[John_Clements]

In this subject either you do something real and put up, or you need to shut up. Otherwise you end up having to go around defending nonsense you really don’t believe in.

The insinuation that by study of some limited narrow unimpressive 19th century version of non-electric modern fencing you then have special inherent insight into methods and styles of fighting that have not been studied or practiced by fencing teachers for centuries, is ridiculous. Trying to claim a dubious connection to earlier teachers somehow grants anyone “authority” and “knowledge” is an absurd notion ---the more so since those very men who wrote on it the last two centuries admitted they didn't know jack about Renaissance martial arts. (This fact has been the subject of Dr. Sydney Anglo’s respected writings, as well as the subject of an entire research book I will be releasing.)

When we go back and read the writings of 18th and 19th century fencing masters (and that of their 20th century heirs), they all but admit in their writings they have no understanding of or respect for the lost and extinct combative methods of the Renaissance —methods which they did not study, practice, or preserve. They themselves tell us no tradition survived in public or private. Which is exactly why we are all now having to work to reconstruct the subject from the original sources. It wasn't understood and it wasn’t retained.

But somehow now we are expected by these foolish “ninjamaestro” bozos to believe actually only they know the real thing and learned it all in secret —and from teachers who themselves never made any record of their having such knowledge, no less. What pathetic garbage.

When you go around trying to bamboozle and misinform and mislead while doing noting substantial to advance the subject, and tell the rest of us all ---who actually fight and teach in public, publish articles and books, and put impressive videos online ---that unlike them we can’t really know the material, can’t genuinely study it or publish on it, because they alone have a “special connection,” that’s pure garbage. I will call it out every time.

I’ve seen these “maestros” myself. These have demonstrated no impressive fighting skills, published no impressive research or scholarship, revealed no substantial ability in Renaissance combat techniques, possess no remarkable athleticism or physicality, have no core skills in no grappling and wrestling (which they actually disparage!), have conducted little realistic test-cutting, offer little-to-no sparring videos of significant competence for viewing, and have produced no students of notable martial caliber as evidence of there instructional worth. Regardless of their interest in and commitment to the subject, none of them has ever exhibited “mastery” level fighting ability in the Renaissance source methods. It’s beyond time they knock off their ridiculous claims to be “masters.” Their backgrounds and true credentials have already been exposed before.

Demonstrable skill and knowledge is what counts, not hollow claims and phantom titles. When you can’t and don’t do techniques with energy and speed and fluidity, you have no excuse for insulting those who readily can and do, except if you are to trying to cover you ass and save face with those fools who buy into this invented “lineage.”

You can’t be a “master” of something that the best of us, which these three are not among, are still struggling to redevelop, revive, and reproduce as legitimate combatives from genuine historical sources.

John C.

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Uribe,

I have here defended my credetials in manner enough.

You now appear to tell me about my "solid paper evidence.
You cannot, you do not, you're willing not."
You know me not.

To simply show a piece of paper is too easy for anyone to simply do.

Paper evidence I have, but as some have here stated with respect to credentials, this is not enough, but ability proven by actions. I have chosen therefore to act and present plain and clear reasoning as to why and how such qualification is legitimate and honestly earned.

The mark of any reasonable man is the ability to first listen, then reason. I would that you could at least open yourself to listen to my words before attempting to shoot them down.

You claim not to be insinuating anything but also state that your "own personal inquires about this organization, turn out dirt and shadows."

This is clearly a direct insinuation with regard to the integrity and character of all members of this organisation. To claim otherwise is to listen not even to yourself. I am sure that you are possessed of more rationale than that.


Mr. Clements,

When I have been perfectly civil, direct at times yes, but not assuming or derogatory towards individuals here in any way, it surprises me as to your tone at this juncture.

I claim no such exhalted mastery as being any such "secret ninja maestro", as such a respected title is clearly beyond my own humble means and abilities.

I do not readily accept accusations of my Lifes work as being a "scam", "farce", "joke", "embarrassment", "fraud", "mockery" and "shallow", let alone being personally insulted as being less than real or serious and a "fool, deserving of no respect."

By your above quotes and more, it is clear that you are a man of many words Clements, and let each man be known by the generosity and Truth of his own.


Mr. Anderson,

I hope I can address your concerns without being too vague or flowery in my delivery.

With regard to your sincere questions about fencing and my personal methods, this is one that could of course like many, be better understood in the salle, which I shall be happy to demonstrate something more to you in person one day

Regarding the notion that skill with one weapon means competency with many, this is not what I am saying.

The Art is as the ability to speak and communicate. Each weapon or style is as a particular language.
It is not adviseable to undertake Mandarin before at least learning the basic precepts of verbal communication and gaining fluency in your natural tounge first.

There are weapons and styles I have yet to experience and enjoy. There are many individuals and instructors more fluent in nuances of historical indigenous languages than I. But the Art is universal, that which overcomes instinct and directs motion and judgement according to principles of Nature, regardless of weapon.

The qualification is in communicating the Art of communication. At least a few languages are neccessary to first know in order to compare, and demonstrate a depth of communicative knowledge with.

Other languages may be studied, learned, understood, applied and imparted along the way.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald