DonTadow said:
Wow, what a stupid comment. A roundhouse does have something to do with circules. It is a punch that you windup for and arc your arm, when you come around it makes a half circle, as if it's coming around. Thus a round house.
upper cut, a punch that moves up. The cut part comes because a good hit will cut the lip of your opponent. Both are boxing terminology that has existed for some time.
I take it you're not a boxing fan.
*AHEM*
It's called "sarcasm."
And still, a roundhouse has nothing to do with houses. A good "upper cut", while it moves upward, still doesn't "cut" the lip of your opponent, it splits it open. Blunt objects, by definition, don't "cut."
To be truly and properly "descriptive," a "roundhouse" ought to be called a "half circle punch" and an "Upper cut" ought to be called an "upwards reverse punch."
Obviously, in the proper context, they make perfect sense. But in context, things like "long tail guard" (for the record, that's the English translation for a type of longsword guard) make perfect sense. The sword is low and sticks out behind the swordsman like, well, a tail.
What if a "Tornado Strike" is a sweeping blow that hurls someone back? That's reasonably descriptive of the effect of the blow. In your view, would something called "skull-splitting strike" have to split the skull? Or is it enough if it just hits it and dazes the target?
People are getting far, far, too hung up on naming conventions, with little to no justification other than "they don't like it." Not liking it is fine, but that doesn't mean that the decision is "wrong." Evocative names, as many people have shown, have their place, even in the European martial tradition. You're entitled to think they're confusing, or to prefer flavorless mechanical descriptions, but you are NOT entitled to complain on a basis that's incorrect.
How can people not comprehend something this simple?