Hi Louis,
I can’t say that I agree with you that this is an example of a topic type of construction, nor do I agree that in Chinese “all verbs/predicates refer to topics.” Some do. Both Mandarin and Classical Chinese use sentence constructions that can be analyzed as subject-predicate relations. The sentence we’re discussing expresses a conditional, if / then construction. In any case, we all seem to be in agreement about the general meaning of the statement.
Not everyone agrees on basic linguistic theories, let alone how Chinese operates, but I find it more helpful to follow
Li and Thompson in considering Chinese a topic-prominent language. Such an analysis requires that we separate the concepts of topic and comment; subject and predicate; and agent, patient, and
predicate logic.
For me the term "subject" makes sense only for languages that have some way of indicating governance between a subject and a verb. The traditional concept of "predicate" is the same. As far as I am aware, neither Classical Chinese nor Modern Chinese has any way of unambiguously indicating a subject, but do have ways of indicating topics and sometimes objects. Classical Chinese has a semi-mandatory object pronoun, but neither Classical Chinese nor Modern Chinese has a morpheme to indicate a subject. Chinese does not reliably indicate definiteness, since this would largely duplicate what a primary topic-comment structure communicates.
Consider the following sentences, where the Chinese topics are easy to identify, but the Chinese subjects are problematical. The English has the opposite problem.
我们到的时候下着毛毛丝雨 When we arrived, it was drizzling.
昨天来了两个客人 Two guests came yesterday.
鱼吃了 The fish was eaten (or the fish ate it.)
Let's take the beginning of the Taiji Treatise, which I will try to translate in accordance with the topics. I cannot, of course, teach you anything about translation, but I want to illustrate my understanding of the grammar.
太極者。無極而生。動靜之機。陰陽之母也。動之則分。靜之則合。無過不及。隨曲就伸。人剛我柔謂之走。我順人背謂之粘。動急則急應。動緩則緩隨。雖變化萬端。而理唯一貫。由著熟而漸悟懂勁。由懂勁而階及神明。然非用力之久。不能豁然貫通焉。
The Supreme Limit is born of the Limitless. It is the crux/trigger of movement and stillness and the mother of Yin and Yang. When it moves them, they separate. When it stills them, they combine. It is without excess or insufficiency, bending to comply and then extending. When the other is hard, I am soft, and it is called "yielding." When I go along, he goes against, and it is called "sticking." If he moves rapidly, I respond rapidly. If he moves slowly, I respond slowly. Although the variations are numerous, the principle is consistent. One moves from familiarity with the techniques, to gradually coming to understand interpreting energy, from interpreting energy to the level of mental clarity. Thus, without putting forth effort for a long time, you cannot suddenly see everything about it in a clear light.
The Chinese indicates an explicit topic with 者; two explicit object pronouns with the second, third, fourth, and fifth occurrences of 之, and a prepositional object with 焉. If I translate, focusing on subjects, I would have problems identifying the subject of 動之 (moves them), 靜之 (stills them), and 不能 (cannot), since many words occur before them, and might misidentify the subject of 無過不及 or of 隨曲就伸 as I hunted around for a likely subject. I think the connection between the 由...而 clauses and the following 然 is not as clear as when you take the former as setting up a topic to be resumed by 然 and commented on at the end of the quote. I think it is also harder to find a reference for 然.
While I find it hard to nit the paragraph into a whole using the subjects, I can do so using the main topics. I see the first main topic as 太極 (the Supreme Limit/Taiji), the second as the clauses describing the exchange between the other and me, and the third as 理 (principle), with the progression of study as a subtopic within the third. Taiji provides the cosmic rule that I follow as an individual. I apply this principle throughout, even though it will take a specific progression of study for me to see all this clearly.
As for the original question, when we speak in technical terms, I am not sure whether "Stiff Jin filling the meridians" means that Stiff Jin is the material that fills the meridians or whether it is the agent that causes something else to fill the meridians. The English is ambiguous; however, I think the former is more implied.
I have been taught about Qi filling the meridians and sinking to the Dantian, but am not sure it is appropriate to talk of Jin in these terms. What I understand is that it is Qi in all cases; however, sometimes it is just local Qi and other times it is whole-body Qi. When we use local Qi, we squeeze the muscles and constrict the channels to push the local Qi out, like suddenly narrowing the walls of a canal, suddenly filling it in to displace the water, or suddenly sweeping the water through. This will produce a local surge of Qi, but will have a start and stop and a limited flow. When we use whole-body Qi, we make sure the Dantian remains full of Qi and "relax" to keep the channels open. This is like making sure the main reservoir of water is full so that all the channels and tributaries will remain full and flowing. Using this method, there is no start and stop to the flow of water and the full power of all the water is available.
I hope my logic is clear, even if you see things differently.
Take care,
Audi