ABSTRACT
The terms cheng and ch'i present a perplexing problem for the reader or translator of texts in traditional Chinese military thought. The interchangeability of ch'i and cheng is emphasized by Peter Alexis Boodberg in his translation of a later work in Chinese military philosophy: what is initially cheng may change into ch'í, and a ch'í maneuver may become cheng. Since both ch'í and cheng are positive terms, counterparts not opposites, distinct yet changeable one into the other, it is lamentable that Wade-Giles and Samuel B. Griffith leave the impression that ch'í can somehow be defined as 'un-cheng'. A reading of Griffith's footnote to his translation shows that our problem is less one of cloudiness in understanding the Chinese terms than of imprecision in the choice of English equivalents: The concept expressed by cheng, 'normal' and ch'i, 'extraordinary' is of basic importance. The normal (cheng) force fixes or distracts the enemy; the extraordinary (ch'i) forces act when and where their blows are not anticipated.
