Japanese _what_ territory?
Doreen Simmons
The freshly-stirred-up Takeshima Islands controversy has dug up a body I thought was safely buried
25 years ago: how to deal with 固有 (koyuu).
When I started this job exactly 30 years ago, the Gaimusho was referring to the Northern Islands
as 'the inherent property of Japan'. Every time it came up I flagged it, patiently pointing out that
'property' has two meanings, concrete and abstract, and 'inherent' could be used only with the abstract one:
hardness is an inherent property (= characteristic) of diamond; but it could NOT
be used with the concrete 'property' meaning 'a thing possessed or owned.' It took some five years before finally
a new broom arrived inthe relevant office of the Gaimusho and accepted that 'inherent property' had been a mistake
made by someone misunderstanding a dictionary citation (or using too small a dictionary).
Some 10-15 years later the Northen Territories came up again, and the diplomats who had been juniors came round again at a higher level,
saying, "But there's a correct term for this, I learnt it years ago!" and we went through it all over again -- though it didn't take as long.
Now, it seems as though the lesson about the two meanings of "property" has been absorbed, but there remains the problem of what adjective we attach to 'territory'.
NHK bilingual news actually started with "integral territory" (which I can accept) but in the same broadcast sloped off into "inherent territory" -- though the
newsreader dropped his voice each time he read it, as if to indicate that the word was not his choice.
Today one of the best translation companies we use has come up with 'indigenous' -- but since this refers to a process of birth, the word should properly be used only
of living things: people, animals and plants -- not crags out in the ocean.
As this is a problem that is going to be with us all over again, can we at Honyaku arrive at some consensus?
Have I overlooked the perfect word we're all searching for?
Doreen Simmons
jz8d...@asahi-net.or.jp
Tod McAvoy
On 2008/07/17, at 16:18, Doreen Simmons wrote:
> The freshly-stirred-up Takeshima Islands controversy has dug up a
> body I thought was safely buried
> 25 years ago: how to deal with 固有 (koyuu).
[snip]
> Have I overlooked the perfect word we're all searching for?
How about cribbing from the Canadians? What language do
they use in their territorial dispute with Denmark?
Regards,
Tod McAvoy
mc...@gol.com
Edward Lipsett /t
> The freshly-stirred-up Takeshima Islands controversy has dug up a body I
> thought was safely buried 25 years ago: how to deal with 固有 (koyuu).
I assume the only reason they keep trumpeting the word is because other
people are staking their own claim (gee, wonder who?). Unless the Gaimusho
is willing to negotiate on ownership, which strikes me as unlikely, the word
is pretty silly... They don't use the word with respect to Honshu or Kyushu,
right? Which presumably means that don't have any doubt about ownership...
And they should show the same belief in ownership in Takeshima, if that's
what they want to say.
- The Japanese Takeshima Islands
- The Takeshima Islands, territory of Japan
Or if they really want to be Japanesey,
- The Takkeshima Islands, which have always belonged to Japan,
Diplomatic language is great, but only if there's room to dicker.
----------
Edward Lipsett, Intercom, Ltd.
translation @intercomltd.com
Publishing: http://www.kurodahan.com
Translation & layout: http://www.intercomltd.com
Oftebro Tim
Nothing else to add however at this point.
Tim Oftebro
Margaret Crute
Margaret Crute
Steven P. Venti
>> The freshly-stirred-up Takeshima Islands controversy has dug up a body I
>> thought was safely buried 25 years ago: how to deal with 固有 (koyuu).
To which Ed responds:
> I assume the only reason they keep trumpeting the word is because other
> people are staking their own claim
I agree, which means that, irrespective of what literal meanings the
word 固有 might have, in my view what they are trying to express is that
the islands are "indisputably" Japanese territory.
FWIW
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven P. Venti
Mail: spv...@bhk-limited.com
URL: http://www.bhk-limited.com
Blog: http://spventi.wordpress.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shinya Suzuki
> The freshly-stirred-up Takeshima Islands controversy has dug up a body I thought was safely buried
> 25 years ago: how to deal with 固有 (koyuu).
"An integral part of Japan's sovereign territory" has been used by Kantei
and MOFA.
Eg:
"...the Four Northern Islands (Habomai, Shikotan, Kunashiri and Etorofu),
which are an integral part of Japan's sovereign territory, ..."
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/hukudaphoto/2008/02/07hoppou_e.html
"The Northern Territories are an integral part of Japan's sovereign
territory that continues to be illegally occupied by Russia."
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/territory/overview.html
No idea why they need both "integral" and "sovereign."
Shinya Suzuki
Jim Lockhart
On 17 Jul 2008 16:18:19 +0900
Doreen Simmons wrote:
> The freshly-stirred-up Takeshima Islands controversy has dug up a
> body I thought was safely buried 25 years ago: how to deal with 固有
> (koyuu).
[snip]
> NHK bilingual news actually started with "integral territory" (which
> I can accept) but in the same broadcast sloped off into "inherent
> territory" -- though the newsreader dropped his voice each time he
> read it, as if to indicate that the word was not his choice.
I don't understand why "always been/historically been Japanese territory"
isn't good enough to do the job: It seems to me that 固有 as used here
is little more than an intensifier to make up for a perceived lack of
emphasis when just expressing it as 「日本の領土」. In English, this
same emphasis is achieved (in spoken language) by stressing _Japanese_,
or with "has always/historically been" in writing.
Because most Japanese do not understand this aspect of English usage
(who's missing the fine nuances NOW, m@#$%r f&!*#r!), they often insist
on making the 固有 part explicit in the English, claiming that without
it, the English doesn't catch the uniquely subtle fine nuances of the
original.
If 固有 has to be made explicit in the English (so much for the Japanese
preference for only hinting at implying so as not to be too blatant), I
would say _integral_ would do the job. Nonetheless, wouldn't it still be
better to word it "Takeshima is/has always been an integral part of
Japan."
> Today one of the best translation companies we use has come up with
> 'indigenous' -- but since this refers to a process of birth, the word
> should properly be used only of living things: people, animals and
> plants -- not crags out in the ocean.
Agreed.
> As this is a problem that is going to be with us all over again, can
> we at Honyaku arrive at some consensus? Have I overlooked the perfect
> word we're all searching for?
I really don't think we need a word, so I see little to overlook.
The question I now have is whether the tendency on the part of some
Japanese to unnecessarily fiddle around with perfectly good English is
integral, inherent, or indigenous. Or maybe it's just endemic?
HTH (and provides a little comic relief),
--Jim Lockhart
Hachioji, Tokyo, JPN
Jim Lockhart
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:01:20 +0900
Shinya Suzuki wrote:
> > The freshly-stirred-up Takeshima Islands controversy has dug up a body I thought was safely buried
> > 25 years ago: how to deal with 固有 (koyuu).
>
> "An integral part of Japan's sovereign territory" has been used by Kantei
> and MOFA.
[snip]
> "The Northern Territories are an integral part of Japan's sovereign
> territory that continues to be illegally occupied by Russia."
> http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/territory/overview.html
These sound perfect. Why some idiot director at NHK, probably over the
heads of his translators and a native-speaker announcers, would not use
it.
> No idea why they need both "integral" and "sovereign."
Hedging. It's in case one or the other misses some fine nuance of the
Japanese. <g>
Peter Durfee
--
Peter Durfee
du...@gol.com
Tokyo
Shinya Suzuki
> > No idea why they need both "integral" and "sovereign."
>
> Hedging. It's in case one or the other misses some fine nuance of the
> Japanese. <g>
I see lots of cases without an "integral" (see below), so it may be just
a padding.
"Guantanamo should be treated as part of the sovereign territory of the
United States."
"the Province, a part of the sovereign territory of the FR of Yugoslavia."
"... treated as if it were part of the sovereign territory of Israel, ..."
"Legally, it remains part of the sovereign territory of the Republic of
Serbia, ..."
Shinya Suzuki
Fred Uleman
problems with "inherently Japanese territory."
That said, I agree that there is room for "inseparable from the rest
of Japan," "indisputably Japanese," and other possibilities.
The trick, as Doreen knows, is not to find _the right term_ but to
find an acceptable (to us) term that the client will accept.
--
Fred Uleman
Doreen Simmons
>find an acceptable (to us) term that the client will accept.
And there we have it. The Gaimusho (and NHK, nadonado) mentality is: if a word is there in Japanese, there
has to be a word of the same form in English, or else we haven't translated it properly.
OTOH, the concept is clearly better expressed in English by "is Japanese territory" or "is Japanese sovereign territory"
or "is Japanese" or "belongs to Japan" or "traditionally belongs to Japan" or other combinations of that kind.
Thanks to Edward, Margaret, Steve, Shinya, Jim, Peter, and Fred, for useful input (plus the two who observed that the Canadians
and the Danes have a similar problem that I didn't know about, but added nothing semantically).
In the end I used 'integral' but suggested one or other of the alternatives above; then I wrote a short essay
(intended to be stored in our own files but also available for feedback to the translation company)
summarising the above, and another specific note on why we couldn't use "indigenous" -- which swam into view a couple of weeks back when the
Ainu were finally officially recognised as an indigenous people -- though some of the papers are still pussyfooting by omitting the 'an'.
Doreen Simmons
jz8d...@asahi-net.or.jp
"I got this job because I write good"
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : ""Doreen Simmons"" <JZ8D...@asahi-net.or.jp>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年7月17日 16:18
件名 : Japanese _what_ territory?
I think integral is pretty good. Indivisible is also something we US'ers
started to use after a certain territorial dispute about 150 years ago.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Alan Siegrist
> 25 years ago: how to deal with 固有 (koyuu).
Well, to get a fresh perspective on the problem, I decided to look this up
in a 国語辞典 and found:
こゆう（‥イウ）
1 （―する）もともと持っていること。「固有する性質」
2 （形動）もともと持っているさま。特に、そのものだけに限って有るさま。
特有。もちまえ。「我が国固有の文化」
So clearly the sense of the term with respect to territory is that which had
been Japan's from the start, from the outset, from the origin; the most
natural English adjective would then be "original."
I think we then run into a problem with nuance in English. If we say that
Takeshima is "originally Japanese territory" there is a nuance that it is
not so now, and this is clearly not what the Gaimusho wants to assert.
Did anyone mention "intrinsically"? That might capture some of the nuance.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA, USA
Marc Adler
Jim Lockhart wrote:
> > No idea why they need both "integral" and "sovereign."
>
> Hedging. It's in case one or the other misses some fine nuance of the
> Japanese. <g>
Actually, looks more like chest-thumping than hedging. Neither side is being very subtle about it.
"Guantanamo should be treated as part of the sovereign territory of the
United States."
"the Province, a part of the sovereign territory of the FR of Yugoslavia."
"... treated as if it were part of the sovereign territory of Israel, ..."
"Legally, it remains part of the sovereign territory of the Republic of
Serbia, ..."
This is the first word that came to mind, because it's a perfect fit ... except for "sovereign" also means royal, and Japan has royalty, in the exalted persons of the Emperor and his family, and if you have an Emperor, then you must have an empire, and ... well, maybe we shouldn't go there, especially when discussing things with the Koreans, who know all about the Japanese Empire.
In other words, translators in the past have undoubtedly suggested "sovereign territory" (since it's such an obvious choice here), and it's probably been shot down because of the association I mention above.
If I were doing this, I'd tell the project manager to drop 固有 altogether. It's more forceful to call the islands "part of Japan" and have done with it than to overmodify it with "historical" or "traditional" or "integral," "inherent," "essential" or whatever.
--
Marc Adler
Austin, TX
Пусть безумная идея, не рубайте сгоряча,
Вызывайте нас скорее через гада главврача,
С уваженьем, дата, подпись, отвечайте нам, а то
Если вы не отзоветесь, мы напишем в "Спортлото"!
Kirill Sereda
k
Shinya Suzuki
[snip]
> In other words, translators in the past have undoubtedly suggested
> "sovereign territory" (since it's such an obvious choice here), and it's
> probably been shot down because of the association I mention above.
No. It has not been shot down (ie, Gaimusho still uses it, as shown in
my previous post). And the notion of sovereignty, which is no longer
linked particularly to monarchy, remains fundamental in international
law.
See eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_territory
> If I were doing this, I'd tell the project manager to drop 固有 altogether.
> It's more forceful to call the islands "part of Japan" and have done with it
> than to overmodify it with "historical" or "traditional" or "integral,"
> "inherent," "essential" or whatever.
Agreed. And I guess the "integral" in "integral (part of the) territory"
doesn't mean much in international law.
Shinya Suzuki
Marc Adler
Agreed. And I guess the "integral" in "integral (part of the) territory"
doesn't mean much in international law.
That's true. I can't imagine the ICJ (for example) asking Japan, "sure, the islands are part of Japan, but are they an _integral_ part of Japan?"
--
Marc Adler
Austin, TX
Jim Lockhart
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:25:15 -0500
Marc Adler wrote:
> > Agreed. And I guess the "integral" in "integral (part of the) territory"
> > doesn't mean much in international law.
>
> That's true. I can't imagine the ICJ (for example) asking Japan, "sure, the
> islands are part of Japan, but are they an _integral_ part of Japan?"
These are really good points, I concede; but doesn't the 領 part of 領土
cover the sovereignty angle? So it's still as Doreen and Fred have
pointed out: How do you handle 固有 when the client won't settle for
covering this meaning with "has always been [Jpnese territory]" and
insists on a word that corresponds to 固有?
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Jim Lockhart" <jamesal...@gmail.com>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年7月18日 22:42
件名 : Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
I really don't think having an adjective of some kind for emphasis is really
so bad, nor do I think that it is something which we would not do in
English. All in all integral is not really so bad. Inseparable or
indivisible are other good options.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Tom Donahue
suggestions look OK to me. But I don't care
for the agency's suggestion of "indigenous".
"Indigenous people" or "indigenous culture "has an
accepted meaning at the UN and other organizations,
meaning the earliest inhabitants, the people who were
there before colonization or incorporation into a state.
In this case, that would be the Kuril Ainu. But they
are gone now, and their language is extinct.
It just doesn't work.
--
Tom Donahue
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Tom Donahue" <arri...@gmail.com>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年7月19日 3:05
件名 : Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
>
Aren't the Yamato Minzoku an indigenous people?
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Edward Lipsett
Nobody is indigenous to anywhere if you go back far enough... and where you
draw the line is exactly what causes all these fights all the time.
=====
Edward Lipsett
Fukuoka, Japan
Chris Moore
Not, if my history is correct, to the Northern Territories. ^_^
Chris Moore
Jerome Conway
> Nobody is indigenous to anywhere if you go back far enough... and where you
> draw the line is exactly what causes all these fights all the time.
I'm reading the Penguin abridged Gibbon and trying to figure out who the
Goths were. What a mess!
Jerome Conway
Marc Adler
I'm reading the Penguin abridged Gibbon and trying to figure out who the
Goths were. What a mess!
http://www.amazon.com/Horse-Wheel-Language-Bronze-Age-Eurasian/dp/0691058873
This (fantastic) book should clear up that question.
Jerome Conway
> > I'm reading the Penguin abridged Gibbon and trying to figure out who the
> > Goths were. What a mess!
Marc Adler:
> http://www.amazon.com/Horse-Wheel-Language-Bronze-Age-Eurasian/dp/0691058873
> This (fantastic) book should clear up that question.
Thanks! Just what I wanted.
> "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." --
> Louis Armstrong
Ba pa dee boo bop.
Jerome Conway
Mika Jarmusz
「竹島は日本の領土です」と
「竹島は日本固有の領土です」とは異なる文章になります。
少なくとも日本語では。
「固有」をいれなかったとき、事柄をそのまま述べていることになります。
竹島がもめ事の争点であるとき、「固有」のない文章は
「誰がいつそう決めたのか」などの根拠がないため、
この文だけでは単なる持論の主張となります。
日本固有の領土という表現における
「固有」には二つの意味合いがあるようで、
一つめは既に言及されましたが
「もともとの」です。これはJimさんが繰り返し書かれているように
"has always been [Japanese territory]"
などの表現がよく伝えていると思います。
とりたてて変わった単語を選ばなかったからといって、
訳さなくてもいい、としたわけではなく、
それだけの意味がhas always beenに凝縮されていることを
日本人の翻訳者が見直す必要があるのかもしれません。
日本人がinherentにこだわろうとするのは、
「固有の」がその文章の心臓にあたるからではないでしょうか。
英訳する人には、そこを理解していただきたいところです。
「固有」のもう一つの意味合いは「固持」を思わせる強調で、
辞書にこそありませんがbelongs toがその直訳ではないでしょうか。
（固持や固守と「固有」とは、意味は全く違います。）
単なる強調であれば、候補となる英語形容詞の数もぐんと増える反面、
しょせん蛇足であり、英語が拙文となるため
訳すには及ばぬとされても、致し方のないこと。
－－－－－－－－－－
このスレッドで
× "inherent territory" という英語が使えないことにやっと気がつきました。
このような英語の用法は私達日本人には大変苦手です。
Fredさんの"inherently Japanese territory" や
GG5の例文のように使えば、英語としては「固有」の意味を伝えることができていますか？
GG5：日本固有の領土
territory that is an inherent part of Japan
あと、integral は「竹島も列島の一部」
「竹島も含まれて列島となる（竹島あっての列島？）」ということで
確かに英文としてはきれいですが、「固有」の訳としては
強調の面からとらえていることになるのでは。
Edさんの３番目の訳が一番近いように思いました。
The Takeshima Islands, which have always belonged to Japan,
Yep, very Japanesey all right.
--
Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
English to Japanese Translator
http://inJapanese.us
Alan Siegrist
> Inalienable?
> the islands are "indisputably" Japanese territory.
> "inseparable from the rest of Japan," "indisputably Japanese,"
> Inseparable or indivisible
While these all sound like good words that might come up in a territorial
dispute, they may not accurately reflect the official position of the
Japanese Gaimusho on the issue.
Clearly the ownership of the islets is disputable because they are now
undeniably in dispute. Both Japan and South Korea claim the territory and
there is now a Korean coast guard garrison stationed there, so they are
effectively occupied and currently in the physical possession of the Korean
side. I recall the old adage that "possession is nine-tenths of the law."
Any Japanese territorial claim to the islands must by its nature dispute the
Korean claim and their de facto possession so the Japanese side must assert
that the Korean possession is illegal or at least "disputable."
If the Japanese side uses language like "inalienable," "inseparable" or
"indivisible" this would imply that the status of the islets is not
negotiable. However, if I understand things correctly, Japan had offered to
have the dispute adjudicated by an international court, and presumably they
would accept their verdict even if it goes against Japan, but the Korean
side turned down this offer.
If the Japanese side were to say they are "inseparable" from the rest of the
territory of Japan, this would seem to set down a very hard line that might
be hard to back up without escalation of the dispute.
I agree with Mika in that Ed and Jim's suggestions along the lines of
"always belonged to Japan" fit best.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist @ Let them play a game of go or soccer for the rocks...
Orinda, CA, USA @ Or jan-ken, perhaps?
Steven P. Venti
> Clearly the ownership of the islets is disputable because they are now
> undeniably in dispute.
Clever witticism, perhaps, but not a persuasive argument by any means.
Language as it is actually used is usually a bit more diaphanous than
Alan accounts for, and in this case characterizing the islands as
"indisputably Japanese territory" indicates not that there is "no
possible argument" over sovereignty but rather a refusal to recognize
(or admit to) any validity in the other party's argument.
Clearly, there is no single "right" solution to rendering this phrase,
and if the "translation" were intended to be a well written exposition
of Japan's stance on this issue, I would probably consider using a
number of different expressions, depending upon context.
That kind of advice is, unfortunately, of little help to Doreen, I know.
But the real heart of this translation issue is that everybody already
knows what is being disputed here, and as long as there is a word in the
English that non-native speakers can recognize as corresponding to 固有,
it doesn't make a whole lot of difference what that word actually is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Venti
spv...@bhk-limited.com
A word is not a crystal--transparent and unchanging; it is the
skin of a living thought, and may vary greatly in color and
content according to the circumstances and time in which it is
used. --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Whipple
> このスレッドで
> × "inherent territory" という英語が使えないことにやっと気がつきました。
>
> このような英語の用法は私達日本人には大変苦手です。
> Fredさんの"inherently Japanese territory" や
> GG5の例文のように使えば、英語としては「固有」の意味を伝えることができていますか？
>
> GG5：日本固有の領土
> territory that is an inherent part of Japan
>
> あと、integral は「竹島も列島の一部」
> 「竹島も含まれて列島となる（竹島あっての列島？）」ということで
> 確かに英文としてはきれいですが、「固有」の訳としては
> 強調の面からとらえていることになるのでは。
>
> Edさんの３番目の訳が一番近いように思いました。
> The Takeshima Islands, which have always belonged to Japan,
I haven't been following this thread, so excuse me if this is repetitive,
but I'm moved to respond to the above.
First of all, "inherently" is bizarre in this context. It represents a claim
that "Takeshima is Japanese territory by its very nature" (「竹島はその本質か
らして日本の領土である」). I'm almost positive that 「固有の領土」 is not
such a claim.
"Integral" has the advantage of not being absurd, but I think it's a bit off
the mark. If I had to translate 「日本（の？）不可分の領土」 into English, I'd
try to use "integral": "an integral part of Japan" or "an integral part of
Japan's territory." But I don't think that's precisely what 「固有」 is
supposed to mean either.
The third option above strikes me as the worst. It is obviously absurd to
claim that Takeshima has (or the Takeshima Islands have, if you prefer the
plural) _always_ belonged to Japan, because neither Takeshima nor Japan has
always existed. And please don't tell me that in this context "always"
doesn't really mean "always" but just means "since time immemorial" or "for
a really long time" or something of that sort. It is true that the word
"always" is often used loosely in that sense ("I've always thought that . .
."), but the touchy nature of the subject matter demands rigor. One doesn't
want to make a claim that would be laughed out of court, so to speak.
I would suggest that 「竹島は日本固有の領土である」 could be accurately
translated as "Takeshima belongs to Japan alone." Here the word "alone,"
like the word 「固有」 in Japanese, is explicitly asserting that Japan's
ownership is not shared with any other country or countries. Though rare,
there do exist territories whose ownership is shared, i.e.
"condominia/-ums"; cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium_%28international_law%29. The above
Japanese and English both say, in effect, "Takeshima is Japanese territory,
and just so we're clear about it, it's *not* a condominium,
thankyouverymuch."
Tangentially, I often watch the news at noon on KBS, the South Korean public
broadcasting system. The weather report shows predictions for about 10 key
locations around the country. Most are major cities, but one of them has no
residents at all: Dokdo.
--
Jeremy Whipple <jwhi...@gol.com>
Setagaya-ku, Tokyo
Alan Siegrist
> The weather report shows predictions for about 10 key locations around
> the country. Most are major cities, but one of them has no residents at
> all: Dokdo.
Evidently, it now has two, count 'em, two residents, according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks
| There are two permanent Korean citizens, Kim Sung-do (김성도) and
| Kim Shin-yeol (김신열), living on the islets. In addition to these
| residents, there are 37 South Korean police officers who take
| residence on guard duty. There are also three Ministry of Maritime
| Affairs and Fisheries personnel, and three lighthouse keepers
| living on the islets in rotation. In the past, several fishermen
| also lived on the islets temporarily.
I guess it is really important for them to know the weather... <g>
Mika Jarmusz
固有 modifies the island alone, without concern for anyone's reactions.
Same with "indisputably." Someone who says 竹島は日本の領土である may already think it's indisputable, but spelling out "indisputably" would add something that is not in the source text, right? The word 固有のdoes not influence whether the statement is disputable or not, so "indisputably" still has no place in translation; it has to come from other parts of the sentence, only when appropriate. I hope that's what Steve was saying. Some fine lines are not for translators to casually cross.
Marc Adler
appropriate. I hope that's what Steve was saying. Some fine lines are not for translators to casually cross.
Also, you're arguing that there's a difference in meaning between 日本の領土 and 日本固有の領土, but I disagree. I think it's a difference in intensity, like a lexical stamping of the foot, and adding it only serves to concede that there is a dispute, thereby indirectly legitimizing it. If Japan's position is to recognize Korea's claim and negotiate, then fine, but if not, then nothing beyond a simple statement of fact will strengthen Japan's claim. Getting theatrically irate i.e., (killing pheasants with hammers) should be left to the other side, since it only weakens their position.
--
Marc Adler
Austin, TX
Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi)
On 2008/07/19, at 20:45, Jeremy Whipple wrote:
> "Integral" has the advantage of not being absurd, but I think it's
> a bit off
> the mark. If I had to translate 「日本（の？）不可分の領土」
> into English, I'd
> try to use "integral": "an integral part of Japan" or "an integral
> part of
> Japan's territory." But I don't think that's precisely what
> 「固有」 is
> supposed to mean either.
Jeremy, I agree with almost everything you've said, but I'm not
sure 固有 actually HAS a precise meaning in this context. Like
others who have already weighed in, I tend to think of it as an
official-sounding emphasizer designed to communicate the overall idea
that "it's really, fundamentally, unquestionably Japanese and not
Korean, no matter how you look at it." The trick is to say that in
appropriately dignified, measured, recognizably diplomatic lingo.
Although the literal meaning of "integral" may be slightly different,
I think "an integral part of Japan" does the trick.
Laurie Berman
Alan Siegrist
Marc Adler writes:
I was advocating leaving 固有 out of the original.
That would be perfectly within your rights if you were writing the original rather than translating.
AFAIK, Doreen was not writing the original.
Marc Adler
AFAIK, Doreen was not writing the original.
I don't think anybody here thought Doreen was writing the original.
Steven P. Venti
> Some fine lines are not for translators to casually cross.
I'm not real sure why this has be be framed as a moral issue, but I'll
tell you what: you draw your lines in the sand where you want to, and
I'll draw mine wherever my client agrees that they belong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven P. Venti
spv...@bhk-limited.com
孫子曰く、
彼を知り己を知れば百戦殆うからず。
Know your enemy, know yourself, and in a hundred battles
you need never know danger. - Sun-tzu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mika Jarmusz
I'm leaning more towards my first interpretation: "has always been" (season to taste) than the second: empty emphasis.
Matt Stanton
> "alone" as a way to translate it, but I want to be also clear that the word
> 「固有」 in Japanese is NOT "explicitly asserting that Japan's ownership is not
> shared with any other country or countries."
I'm not sure about that. The kokugo jiten in front of me gives 他にはなく、その
ものだけに限ってある as one of the definitions of 固有.
And I feel that if someone says コアラなどオーストラリアの固有の動物, there are talking
about koalas, kangaroos, and other animals that can only be found in
Australia.
So I think the idea of sole ownership is definitely included in the
meaning of 日本固有の領土.
Matt Stanton
Jim Lockhart
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:22:14 -0500
Marc Adler wrote:
> > appropriate. I hope that's what Steve was saying. Some fine lines are not
> > for translators to casually cross.
>
> Just to make this clear: I wasn't advocating leaving 固有 out of the
> translation. I was advocating leaving 固有 out of the original.
Which is kind of irrelevant here, isn't it? What are we supposed to do,
turn around and tell the client to leave this out of the original?
(Note: I can see times when we might want to do that, and I've
recommended such things with public relations materials in instances
where I thought, e.g., something might give offense; but in 90% of our
work, that's not really a practical solution, is it?)
> Also, you're arguing that there's a difference in meaning between 日本の領土 and
> 日本固有の領土, but I disagree. I think it's a difference in intensity, like a
> lexical stamping of the foot, and adding it only serves to concede that
> there is a dispute, thereby indirectly legitimizing it.
Isn't your "difference in intensity" the same as Mika's "difference in
meaning"? Your interpretation of the lexical stamping of the foot is, in
my opinion, quite correct; and I think that's what Mika meant by
"difference in meaning."
> If Japan's position
> is to recognize Korea's claim and negotiate, then fine, but if not, then
> nothing beyond a simple statement of fact will strengthen Japan's claim.
> Getting theatrically irate i.e., (killing pheasants with hammers) should be
> left to the other side, since it only weakens their position.
True, but neither the Japanese nor the Koreans are particularly noted
anywhere in the world for not shooting themselves in the feet once the
debate turns emotional. So again, I don't see how this is relevant to
this discussion. We are not trying to figure out how to advise the
Japanese government/diplomats in this matter; our job is to help them...
uh... shoot themselves in the foot.
FWIW,
Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi)
Jim Lockhart
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:20:07 -0400
Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi) wrote:
> So, at least from the media's viewpoint, it seems that 固有
> doesn't mean much of anything, and __固有の領土 is simply
> the 決まり文句 that one uses in these situations.
Definitely. 固有 is almost like a 枕詞 (makura kotoba) for 領土. I think
the Japanese use it in reference to the Northern Territories, too. And
between the Japanese and Koreans, 固有の領土 pushes all the right
buttons.
But English-writing journalists are not likely to care about the
button-pushing and stance-maitaining nuances, so they leave it out. For
them, it's just another silly territorial dispute.
Unlike journalists, we still have to figure out a way to put it.
(Sop for Marc: Writer Ohmae Ken'ichi has long pointed out that the costs
of maintaining these territories in most instances outweighs the
economic and political benefits that it would entail, and therefore
recommends letting the Russians and the Koreans keep them. The costs of
misplaced pride, though, don't lose politicians anything and in fact seem
to win them brownie points with the noisier parts of the electorate.)
Marc Adler
So again, I don't see how this is relevant to
this discussion.
Marc Adler
of maintaining these territories in most instances outweighs the
economic and political benefits that it would entail, and therefore
recommends letting the Russians and the Koreans keep them.
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Jim Lockhart" <jamesal...@gmail.com>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年7月21日 12:32
件名 : Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
>
>
Adam Smith said something similar about a certain bunch of colonies that
couldn't resist squabbling with their neighbors and then bitched about
paying for the troops that had to be sent to bail them out.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
William Sakovich
of maintaining these territories in most instances outweighs the
economic and political benefits that it would entail, and therefore
recommends letting the Russians and the Koreans keep them. The costs of
misplaced pride, though, don't lose politicians anything and in fact seem
Did Omae Kenichi calculate the not insubstantial economic benefits to the
fishing industry? I wonder. Shimane Prefecture fishermen are prevented from
fishing there now, despite a bilateral fishing industry agreement that
allows them to.
Very little costs are required to let some islets 1/20th the size of New
York's Central Park just sit there. They're uninhabitable. The only reason
any facilities are there now is because the Koreans insist on maintaining
their claim. The only facilities the Japanese ever had were a couple of huts
put up by the people who had the fishing concession years ago.
There seems to be a lot of that misplaced pride going around, winning
brownie points with the noisy electorate.
- BS
Doreen Simmons
> Jim added:>(Sop for Marc: Writer Ohmae Ken'ichi has long pointed out that the costs
>of maintaining these territories in most instances outweighs the
>economic and political benefits that it would entail, and therefore
>recommends letting the Russians and the Koreans keep them. The costs of
>misplaced pride, though, don't lose politicians anything and in fact seem
>
Err, yes, but in the case of Takkeshima there was always a fairly imoportant fishing ground, and now it is realised that it's prety well on the
dividing line of some very rich sea-bottom mineral resources. The Niorthern Islands also involve rich fisheries.
Doreen Simmons surfacing briefly before catching the train back from a weekend's sumo in Nagoya
jz8d...@asahi-net.or.jp
Mika Jarmusz
Jeremy Whipple
> Considering that there is no single correct translation, I like Jeremy's
> "alone" as a way to translate it, but I want to be also clear that the word 「固
> 有」 in Japanese is NOT "explicitly asserting that Japan's ownership is not
> shared with any other country or countries."
>
> 固有 modifies the island alone, without concern for anyone's reactions.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the clarification.
Along the same lines as my earlier "belongs to Japan alone," let me just
throw in the word "exclusively" as a possible gloss for「固有」in cases
where omitting it is not an option:
「竹島は日本固有の領土である」
"Takeshima is exclusively Japanese territory."
But Mika, you seem to be saying that this is _not_ what「固有」actually
means, which puzzles me.
Mika Jarmusz
竹島は日本固有の領土である is not the same as
竹島は日本の独占的な領土である
何々の領土である pretty much is saying that it's exclusively so, already. The concept of condominium is an exception that I think we can safely set aside.
固有の is not there to amplify the "exclusiveness" of the ownership. What 固有の amplifies is that the island "rightfully" belongs to Japan, because (or that) it always has been. It's an adjective that points inward, enhancing the tie between the island and Japan. "Exclusiveness" points outward, and 固有の stays clear of that. Of course, you can infer the exclusiveness, but then you can also infer that it is "indisputably so," which is not what固有の is all about. At least that's how I see it.
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Mika Jarmusz" <mik...@gmail.com>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年7月22日 11:16
件名 : Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
Use of "rightful" is another one to kick around. But really this sort of
brings us back to "integral" doesn't it?
Or just "belongs" as other have stated. To use another example "Northern
Ireland belongs to Ireland" sounds like something that might be said, and
probably includes the 固有, certainly more than just "Northern Ireland is
part of Ireland."
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Jeremy Whipple
> Glad you asked, it was not easy for me to explain.
Thanks for the answer.
>
> 竹島は日本固有の領土である is not the same as
> 竹島は日本の独占的な領土である
>
> 何々の領土である pretty much is saying that it's exclusively so, already. The
> concept of condominium is an exception that I think we can safely set
> aside.
Hmm . . .
>
> 固有の is not there to amplify the "exclusiveness" of the ownership. What 固有の
> amplifies is that the island "rightfully" belongs to Japan, because (or
> that) it always has been. It's an adjective that points inward, enhancing
> the tie between the island and Japan. "Exclusiveness" points outward, and
> 固有の stays clear of that. Of course, you can infer the exclusiveness, but
> then you can also infer that it is "indisputably so," which is not what固有の
> is all about. At least that's how I see it.
I'm afraid I still don't quite get it. How do you get from 固有 to
"rightfully"? But I grant that sticking in "rightfully" at least wouldn't
look absurd or bizarre, unlike some of the other options, so it that sense
maybe it's a reasonable option in cases where there's a demand for an
explicit rendering of the term.
I still think it means "exclusively," but it's not easy for me to change my
mind . . .
Steven P. Venti
> Use of "rightful" is another one to kick around. But really this sort of
> brings us back to "integral" doesn't it?
One of the things about this thread that had been interesting to me is
that apparently there is a lot of variation among NSE about what the
word "integral" means. For example, take the statement: Hawaii and
Alaska are an integral part of the US. If the topic is economics,
politics, or contemporary US culture, I would have no problem with that
sentence. On the other hand, if there were historical or geographic
considerations in play, I would probably want to choose a different word.
In this particular case, I think rightful and integral convey two
distinct and mutually exclusive meanings, but it wouldn't surprise me to
learn that other NSE don't agree.
Edward Lipsett /t
> In this particular case, I think rightful and integral convey two
> distinct and mutually exclusive meanings, but it wouldn't surprise me to
> learn that other NSE don't agree.
Agreed.
My own personal takeis that trying to force the Japanese meaning into a
single English word is a doomed proposition.
I'd much prefer "It is, and always has been, a part of Japan" which (IMHO)
is pretty difficult to misinterpret.
----------
Edward Lipsett, Intercom, Ltd.
translation @intercomltd.com
Publishing: http://www.kurodahan.com
Translation & layout: http://www.intercomltd.com
Tom Donahue
> I'm afraid I still don't quite get it. How do you get from 固有 to
> "rightfully"?
How about "naturally"? That's why they don't talk too much
about "owning" or "belongs to".
It's Japanese because it is in its nature to be Japanese
Several people can own the same book. But you can't own
your native language or personality.
--
Tom Donahue
Alan Siegrist
Ambassador to South Korea on February 23, 2005 in Seoul. This statement
appears to be one that may have set off or exacerbated the recent round of
this brouhaha. A propaganda video made by the Korean side which is rather
corny but which contains a clip of this statement appears here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuEoLPQnnMY
The actual words spoken are:
"Takeshima is historically and legally part of Japanese territory."
Whether or not these words are good translations of what the ambassador
intended to say may not necessarily matter because what he actually said may
be more important.
Perhaps "historically" was intended as a translation of 固有.
Edward Lipsett /t
> Perhaps "historically" was intended as a translation of 固有.
I would suggest that "historically and legally" is the translation.
...which is why people who insist on finding a 1:1 match between E and J
words face certain difficulties.
Marc Adler
island and Japan. "Exclusiveness" points outward, and 固有の stays clear of that. Of course, you can infer the exclusiveness,
In fact, I would recommend that Doreen show the clip to the people she's working with.
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Steven P. Venti" <spv...@bhk-limited.com>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年7月22日 12:32
件名 : Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
>
> Richard Thieme writes:
>
>> Use of "rightful" is another one to kick around. But really this sort of
>> brings us back to "integral" doesn't it?
>
> One of the things about this thread that had been interesting to me is
> that apparently there is a lot of variation among NSE about what the
> word "integral" means. For example, take the statement: Hawaii and
> Alaska are an integral part of the US. If the topic is economics,
> politics, or contemporary US culture, I would have no problem with that
> sentence. On the other hand, if there were historical or geographic
> considerations in play, I would probably want to choose a different word.
>
Interesting. Could you expand on that? It would seem to me that economics
would be a weaker link than anything except perhaps geography.
But what do we really mean by "integral" in this sense? Integrated into the
mainstream life of the greater country? Economic integration? A part of the
total? or internally ours (which is my sense of the word in this case)?
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Marc Adler" <marc....@gmail.com>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年7月22日 13:17
件名 : Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
> 2008/7/21 Mika Jarmusz <mik...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>> island and Japan. "Exclusiveness" points outward, and 固有の stays clear
>> of
>> that. Of course, you can infer the exclusiveness,
>>
>
> I think I see what you're getting at: in other words, "inherently
> Japanese"
> _is_ the right translation. The problem is, the Anglophone audience would
> have question marks floating around their heads if they heard that. "How
> can
> an island (=geography) be inherently Japanese (=culture)?" We need
> something
> more, an explanation of what makes it "inherently" Japanese, which is why
> clearer heads than the people Doreen is working with have opted for
> "historically and legally" (=explicit descriptions of the inherency),
> which
> does seem to hit the nail on the head.
>
> In fact, I would recommend that Doreen show the clip to the people she's
> working with.
>
> --
I think it also has to do with the problem of expressing "right" and
"rightful" in Japanese. I run across this all the time since "right" in
English has the connotation of just or good, while 権利 or its variants does
not.
As an exercise in what I am talking about wouldn't トリエステはイタリの固有の領土 be a good translation into Japanese of "Trieste rightfully belongs to
Italy?"
Still I don't think we should abandon "integral" it seems to have currency
in these border disputes.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/GACOL3067.doc.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0506/S00278.htm
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/polsol.htm
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Edward Lipsett /t
> As an exercise in what I am talking about wouldn't トリエステはイタリの固有の領土 be a
> good translation into Japanese of "Trieste rightfully belongs to
> Italy?"
I would say not, because "right" is culturally subjective, while 固有 is
(theoretically) objective.
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Edward Lipsett /t" <trans...@intercomltd.com>
宛先 : "Honyaku Google" <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年7月22日 13:51
件名 : Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
>
> on 08/07/22 13:48, Richard Thieme wrote:
>
>> As an exercise in what I am talking about wouldn't トリエステはイタリの固有の領土 be a
>> good translation into Japanese of "Trieste rightfully belongs to
>> Italy?"
>
> I would say not, because "right" is culturally subjective, while 固有 is
> (theoretically) objective.
>
I am not sure I get your distinction here. People talk about objective
rights. I certainly could see a statement like "from an objective
perspective, Dokdo is rightfully Korean,"
And I don't get why the _assertion_ 固有 is objective, and it really is the
assertion we are talking about, isn't it??
Not trying to be argumentative here, but I am a little confused.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Edward Lipsett /t
> Not trying to be argumentative here, but I am a little confused.
We're not arguing, we're discussing. The fact that I have a mallet in my
hand has nothing to do with it...
"right" and "wrong" are rather flexible terms, and pretty much defined by
whoever's talking. The Japanese were right to make Korea and Manchuria
Japanese possessions, until the victors changed the definition.
Saying that Japan is the "rightful" owner sort of invites different
definitions.
To me, the whole point of 固有 is that it always has been, is, and always
will be, inseparable from Japan, regardless of whatever anyone says. In the
worst case, I suppose it would remain a part of Japan even if it were
annexed by a foreign nation for a cetury or two.
At any rate, such is my interpretation of 固有.
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Edward Lipsett /t" <trans...@intercomltd.com>
宛先 : "Honyaku Google" <hon...@googlegroups.com>
件名 : Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
>
> on 08/07/22 13:57, Richard Thieme wrote:
>
>> Not trying to be argumentative here, but I am a little confused.
>
> We're not arguing, we're discussing. The fact that I have a mallet in my
> hand has nothing to do with it...
>
> "right" and "wrong" are rather flexible terms, and pretty much defined by
> whoever's talking. The Japanese were right to make Korea and Manchuria
> Japanese possessions, until the victors changed the definition.
> Saying that Japan is the "rightful" owner sort of invites different
> definitions.
>
> To me, the whole point of 固有 is that it always has been, is, and always
> will be, inseparable from Japan, regardless of whatever anyone says. In
> the
> worst case, I suppose it would remain a part of Japan even if it were
> annexed by a foreign nation for a cetury or two.
> At any rate, such is my interpretation of 固有.
>
But wouldn't that be a subjective assertion? It seems to me that it gets
back to "belongs," with rightful just sort of tacked on as an emphasis.
Like this
Which gives "the conviction that the Malvinas rightfully belong to Argentina
is now so deeply embedded in the Argentine psyche . . .
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Edward Lipsett /t
> But wouldn't that be a subjective assertion?
That's why there's a difference of opinion... The Japanese consider it an
objective fact, everybody else a temporary historical subjective situation.
Jim Lockhart
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:29:39 +0900
Edward Lipsett /t wrote:
> > But wouldn't that be a subjective assertion?
>
> That's why there's a difference of opinion... The Japanese consider it an
> objective fact, everybody else a temporary historical subjective situation.
Which is why Richard's suggestion is valid here: The original wants it
to sound objective (even if, objectively speaking, it isn't).
Isn't the objective of translation to say what the original says (or
intends to say), even when that is incongruent with the facts or reality?
Edward Lipsett /t
> Isn't the objective of translation to say what the original says (or
> intends to say), even when that is incongruent with the facts or reality?
I think it has to be... You can't be held responsible for what the source
says, but you can sure as heck be held responsible for what it doesn't say!
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Edward Lipsett /t" <trans...@intercomltd.com>
宛先 : "Honyaku Google" <hon...@googlegroups.com>
件名 : Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
>
> on 08/07/22 14:25, Richard Thieme wrote:
>
>> But wouldn't that be a subjective assertion?
>
> That's why there's a difference of opinion... The Japanese consider it an
> objective fact, everybody else a temporary historical subjective
> situation.
>
Hmmm. But it seems to me that the 建前 of "rightful" is that it is
objective. That a neutral person would look at all of the facts and
situations and conclude that objectively Constantinnople belongs to the
Greeks.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
"When you get right down to it there are only two points that really count."
"Such as?"
Skeffington held up two fingers "One" he said ticking the first,"all Ireland
must be free." "Two" he said, ticking the second, "Trieste belongs to
Italy." "They count. At the moment the first counts more than the second but
that is only because the Italians were a little slow in getting to the
boat."
-- Edwin O'Connor, the Last Hurrah
Edward Lipsett /t
> But it seems to me that the 建前 of "rightful" is that it is
> objective. That a neutral person would look at all of the facts and
> situations and conclude that objectively Constantinnople belongs to the
> Greeks.
Hmm, yes, well, my suspicion is that every war in history has been between
multiple parties all of whom beieved they were in the right.
History books are written by the victors,
As for Constantinople, surely it belongs to the Amazons.
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Richard Thieme" <rdth...@gol.com>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年7月22日 14:51
件名 : Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> 送信者 : "Edward Lipsett /t" <trans...@intercomltd.com>
> 宛先 : "Honyaku Google" <hon...@googlegroups.com>
> 送信日時 : 2008年7月22日 14:29
> 件名 : Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
>
(snip)
> situations and conclude that objectively Constantinnople belongs to the
--> Constantinople
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Kirill Sereda
will be, inseparable from Japan
In Ancient Chinese, the combination "固有" appears in a number of classical
texts in the sense of "has always had...". The first character, "固" was
often used as an adverbial meaning "from the beginning, always..." (and was
interchangeable with the adverb "故" "from the very beginning"). For
instance, in Mencius:
臣固知王之不忍也
"I have always known that Your Majesty is impatient."
In modern Chinese dictionaries, e.g. in "国語辞典", "固有" is defined as "本
来就有的" (possessed from the very beginning).
Another shade of meaning the character "固" seems to bring into play is that
of certainty. In Ancient Chinese, "固" was also used in the sense of
"certainly, definitely"
魯鐘連曰：固也！待吾言之。
Lu Zhong-lian said: "Certainly! Later, let's talk about it."
k
Jim Lockhart
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:04:20 -0600
Kirill Sereda wrote:
> >>To me, the whole point of 固有 is that it always has been, is, and always
> will be, inseparable from Japan
>
> In Ancient Chinese, the combination "固有" appears in a number of classical
> texts in the sense of "has always had...". The first character, "固" was
> often used as an adverbial meaning "from the beginning, always..." (and was
> interchangeable with the adverb "故" "from the very beginning").
Brilliant! In Japanese, 「固（もと）より有（あり）て日本の領土なり」。
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
WARNING to all dead horses:
Wander not into this forum!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<g>
Fred Uleman
> But what do we really mean by "integral" in this sense? Integrated into the
> mainstream life of the greater country? Economic integration? A part of the
> total? or internally ours (which is my sense of the word in this case)?
For some reason brought the term "organic" to mind.
FWIW
--
Fred Uleman
Shinya Suzuki
> But what do we really mean by "integral" in this sense? Integrated into the
> mainstream life of the greater country? Economic integration? A part of the
> total? or internally ours (which is my sense of the word in this case)?
But externally theirs? <g>
Seriously, according to E-E dictionaries (see Appendix), "an integral
part of something" means (A) "a necessary/essential part of that thing"
or (B) "a part essential to the completeness of that thing."
固有 does not have either meaning of "integral." So it now seems
INCORRET to translate 日本（の）固有の領土 as "an integral part of
Japanese territory."
Shinya Suzuki
Appendix
Entries for "Integral":
A1: Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
1 forming a necessary part of something
*Vegetables are an integral part of our diet.
A2: COBUILD English Dictionary
Something that is an integral part of something is an essential part of
that thing. * Rituals and festivals form an integral part of every
human society.
B1: American Heritage Dictionary
1. Essential or necessary for completeness; constituent:*The kitchen is
an integral part of a house.
B2: Merriam-Webster, Unabridged
1 a : of, relating to, or serving to form a whole : essential to
completeness : organically joined or linked : CONSTITUENT, INHERENT
<science has become an integral part of his cultural environment
C.I.Glicksberg> <an integral part of the empire>
B3: Oxford English Dictionary
1. Of or pertaining to a whole. Said of a part or parts: Belonging to
or making up an integral whole; constituent, component; spec. necessary
to the completeness or integrity of the whole; forming an intrinsic
portion or element, as distinguished from an adjunct or appendage. (Cf.
integrant.) (Formerly distinguished from essential: see quots. 1697,
1727.)
... 1697 Locke 2nd Vind. Reas. Chr. 247 (Seager) Integral parts .. are
contradistinguished to essential; and signify such parts, as the thing
can be without, but without them will not be so complete and entire as
with them. 1727-41 Chambers Cycl., Integral, or Integrant, is applied
by the schoolmen, to those parts which are necessary to the integrity of
a whole... In which sense they stand contradistinguished from essential
parts... The arms, legs, etc. are integral parts; body and soul
essential parts of a man....
[UNQUOTE]
SS note: The OED's distinction between "integral" and "essential" is
quite illuminating. さすが OED!
Shinya Suzuki
> I think I see what you're getting at: in other words, "inherently Japanese"
> _is_ the right translation. The problem is, the Anglophone audience would
> have question marks floating around their heads if they heard that. "How can
> an island (=geography) be inherently Japanese (=culture)?"
Why not: an island (=territory) is inherently Japanese (=state's ownership)?
> We need something
> more, an explanation of what makes it "inherently" Japanese, which is why
> clearer heads than the people Doreen is working with have opted for
> "historically and legally" (=explicit descriptions of the inherency), which
> does seem to hit the nail on the head.
"Historically and legally" corresponds to 歴史的にも法的にも, which
currently seems too strong/explicit from a diplomatic point of view.
This may be one of the reasons why much less explicit 固有の is
preferred.
Shinya Suzuki
Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi)
On 2008/07/22, at 1:02, Edward Lipsett /t wrote:
>
> To me, the whole point of 固有 is that it always has been, is,
> and always
> will be, inseparable from Japan, regardless of whatever anyone says.
But as Jeremy pointed out (I think), not even the Japanese government
would make this claim with regard to Takeshima.
Laurie Berman
Mika Jarmusz
Perhaps we can look at an actual statement made in English by the Japanese
The actual words spoken are:
"Takeshima is historically and legally part of Japanese territory."
The "historically and legally" in above seems to reflect the general position set forth by the 外務省 and not necessarily the translation of the word 固有の.
竹島の領有権に関する我が国の一貫した立場
1. 竹島は、歴史的事実に照らしても、かつ国際法上も明らかに我が国固有の領土です。
-----
This statement comes with English translation, but since we are studying the meanings in the source language first, then in the target language, I would regard its English version as only a dot on the graph.
It felt like "rightfully" came with air quotes, and I wasn't sure why, but now I see that words like "rightfully" or "legitimately" only happens after judgments are made, whereas 固有の tells us it has been there always, before any squabbles occurred and arbitrary judgements are/were made. Genuinely? Hmm, that one is another sugar cube that won't keep its shape once submerged into the waters of English language.
--
Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
English to Japanese Translator
http://inJapanese.us
Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi)
On 2008/07/21, at 20:14, Jeremy Whipple wrote:
>
> Along the same lines as my earlier "belongs to Japan alone," let me
> just
> throw in the word "exclusively" as a possible gloss for「固有」
> in cases
> where omitting it is not an option:
>
> 「竹島は日本固有の領土である」
> "Takeshima is exclusively Japanese territory."
>
> But Mika, you seem to be saying that this is _not_ what「固有」
> actually
> means, which puzzles me.
Let me give it a try, if I may.
It appears to me that 固有 has more than one meaning. One
corresponds to "uniquely," or "exclusively." But I don't think that's
the meaning of 固有 in Article 15 of the Constitution of Japan,
which states, 公務員を選定し、及びこれを罷免することは、国民固有
の権利である。
In fact, this is a translation of the English "inalienable." Isn't
this closer to the 固有 of 「竹島は日本固有の領土であ
る」? Of course, inalienable doesn't work for territory. (But
"integral" does. <g>)
Laurie Berman
berma...@comcast.net
Kirill Sereda
corresponds to "uniquely," or "exclusively."
I wonder where this meaning of "uniqueness/exclusivity" comes from? That
something is inherent to or immanent in an object does not mean it is
necessarily unique or exclusive to the object. The Japanese simply means
that "Takeshima Islands... have always belonged (do now, and always will
belong,) to Japan".
k
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi)
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:34 AM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
Marc Adler
Why not: an island (=territory) is inherently Japanese (=state's ownership)?
The problem is that something can't be inherently owned, other than maybe parts of your body, or children.
"Historically and legally" corresponds to 歴史的にも法的にも, which
currently seems too strong/explicit from a diplomatic point of view.
Wasn't it a Japanese diplomat who said it?
Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi)
On 2008/07/22, at 14:39, Kirill Sereda wrote:
> I wonder where this meaning of "uniqueness/exclusivity" comes from?
> That
> something is inherent to or immanent in an object does not mean it is
> necessarily unique or exclusive to the object.
You misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is that "uniqueness/
exclusivity" is one POSSIBLE meaning of the word 固有, depending
on the context. I personally do NOT think that it means that in the
context of __固有の領土--just as it does not in the context of
Article 15. That is the point I was trying to make.
> The Japanese simply means
> that "Takeshima Islands... have always belonged (do now, and always
> will
> belong,) to Japan".
I'm glad it's so simple!
To clarify:
Kirill Sereda
exclusivity" is one POSSIBLE meaning of the word 固有, depending
on the context.
possession, but to the time-independent nature of possession.
k
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi)
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:42 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
Mika Jarmusz
What I was trying to say is that "uniqueness/
exclusivity" is one POSSIBLE meaning of the word 固有, depending
on the context. I personally do NOT think that it means that in the
context of __固有の領土--just as it does not in the context of
Article 15.
That was my initial impression as well, that 固有 might also imply "exclusiveness," as Matt also noted. I'm now thinking, however, that it's a common misconception, and that it's good to talk about it here.
There are some usage out there that can be interpreted as "exclusively," but the word itself only means "distinctive," which happens to be "exclusive" at the same time. But that doesn't mean that 固有 "explicitly" means "exclusive."
examples:
固有 の識別情報です。
要素に固有の番号を付けたものだ。 これが結構便利で、
学研国語辞典
固有
①〔文語・文章語〕そのものが、本来持っていること。本来そなわっていること。
②《形容動詞》そのものだけにあること。特有。《類義語》独特。特異。
Marc Adler
examples:
固有 の識別情報です。
要素に固有の番号を付けたものだ。 これが結構便利で、
Mika Jarmusz
Kirill Sereda
If I were to translate these examples, I would use “specific”.
k
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mika Jarmusz
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:33
PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Japanese _what_
territory?
Er, that's
why I cited them; those are indeed misleading because the word 固有
can be used quite conveniently in that situation, but that still does NOT mean
that 固有 explicitly means "exclusive."
--‾--‾---------‾--‾----‾------------‾-------‾--‾----‾
To post: mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com
List home: http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku
FAQ: http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku/web
Posters assume all responsibility for their posts; list owners do not
review messages and accept no responsibility for the content of posts.
-‾----------‾----‾----‾----‾------‾----‾------‾--‾---
Marc Adler
Er, that's why I cited them; those are indeed misleading because the word 固有 can be used quite conveniently in that situation, but that still does NOT mean that 固有 explicitly means "exclusive."
Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi)
On 2008/07/22, at 16:11, Mika Jarmusz wrote:
>
> There are some usage out there that can be interpreted as
> "exclusively," but the word itself only means "distinctive," which
> happens to be "exclusive" at the same time. But that doesn't mean
> that 固有 "explicitly" means "exclusive."
FWIW, in the contexts of Article 15 of the Constitution and of
territorial claims, I do not think the meaning of 固有 as unique
or specific or distinctive applies, either (excluding exclusivity for
the sake of argument).
And that's my final answer. ;-)
Laurie Berman
berma...@comcast.net
Chris Moore
immediately dismissed its usage in this situation, but I think it
works quite nicely. See the definition in the New Oxford American
Dictionary:
inalienable |ɪnˈeɪliənəbəl|
adjective
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor
"Takeshima is an inalienable part of of the territory of Japan."
Particularly when paired with 領有権, which was the phrase used by the
Chunichi shimbun yesterday in their commentary of the issue, it gains
extra currency because of the collocation of "inaliable" and "rights."
Japan has the inalienable right to [own] Takeshima.
This phrasing avoids the "unique" angle or the "from long long ago"
angle that everyone has been bickering about, but expresses the
Gaimusho position that the rights that Japan claims to the island are
"unable to be taken away from or given away," and so discussions
leading to either of those results will prove fruitless.
My two cents
Chris Moore
2008/7/23 Laurie Berman (Sekiguchi) <berma...@comcast.net>:
Kirill Sereda
k
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Moore
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:00 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Japanese _what_ territory?
Mika Jarmusz
By the way, how do you translate this? When you put a sentence together like this, doesn't "rightfully" fit in the space where 固有の dissolves away?
竹島は、歴史的事実に照らしても、かつ国際法上も明らかに我が国固有の領土です。
Steven P. Venti
> Of course, inalienable doesn't work for territory. (But "integral" does. <g>)
I agree with almost everything that Laurie has said in this thread,
except the above. <g>
First, although I think that "Takeshima is an inalienable part of
Japanese territory" is iffy, "Takeshima is an integral part of
Japanese territory" is downright meaningless.
Looking at the links that Richard provided as examples of the usage of
integral in this kind of context, it is worth noting that the two
articles on the Falkland Islands explicitly refers not just to the
islands but to the surrounding maritime territory, and in my opinion,
without something like this to indicate contiguity (i.e., direct contact),
the word integral is not appropriate.
Just claiming that something is an integral part of something else does
not make it so, as a very large software company once learned when it
made the claim that a certain Web browser was an integral part of a
certain operating system, and lost an anti-trust suit as a result.
FWIW
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Venti
spv...@bhk-limited.com
Grandpa was a carpenter, he built houses, stores and banks,
Chain-smoked Camel cigarettes and hammered nails in planks,
He was level on the level, shaved even every door,
And voted for Eisenhower 'cause Lincoln won the war.
-- John Prine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lockhart
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:51:35 +0900
Steven P. Venti wrote:
> without something like this to indicate contiguity (i.e., direct contact),
> the word integral is not appropriate.
I disagree. This use of integral seems fine to me. "An integral part of..."
can imply essential attributes as well as physical ones, and it is in
the essential sense that it is being used here.
As you like to say, Steve... YMMV,
Mika Jarmusz
Steven P. Venti
> I'm with Suzuki-san who stated 固有 does not translate into "integral."
> In the following sentence, it still doesn't seem likely that "integral"
> is the translation for 固有の, unless I'm mistaken.
Well, looking at how these issues are usually described or discussed in
English might provide some insight into how and when the word integral
can very nicely encompass the meaning of 固有 as you have presented it.
The English word integral refers to completeness. Since you have said that
one way to render 固有 is "has always been," I would argue that to
remove something that has always been a part of a greater whole would be
to render that greater whole incomplete.
I believe it has already been stated that looking for a one-to-one
correspondence in translation is folly, to which I might add that
ignoring shared meaning elements in the target language is also folly.
> I'm curious how acceptable "rightfully" is in the English language,
> aside from the previous discussion on subjectivity/objectivity
> differences between "rightfully" and 固有の because in the following
> sentence, it does not seem to matter. Anyone?
>
> 竹島は、歴史的事実に照らしても、かつ国際法上も明らかに我が国固有の領土です。
I believe that is is possible to make the argument that "legally" and
"rightfully" are overlapping concepts that also have some mutually
exclusive elements of meaning. In the US, especially, there are many
laws that have been implemented in order to ensure that certain rights
are not infringed upon.
Given the added information that the above Japanese contains, one
possible translation might be: Both historically and from the
perspective of international law, Takeshima is an integral part of our
sovereign territory.
Other expressions that might be used in place of "is an integral part"
include "is rightfully a part of," "is indisputably a part of," and even
"has always been a part of."
Of course, the Koreans are making the exact same assertion. <g>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Venti
spv...@bhk-limited.com
A word is not a crystal--transparent and unchanging; it is the
skin of a living thought, and may vary greatly in color and
content according to the circumstances and time in which it is
used. --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven P. Venti
Jim Lockhart <jamesal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "An integral part of..." can imply essential attributes as well as physical ones
I agree--and don't get me wrong; I am not saying that integral would be
incorrect as a translation. I am simply saying that it doesn't make any
sense to me without an explicit reference to the manner in which
contiguity is established.
> As you like to say, Steve... YMMV,
I never say that, Jim. My pet line is: One size _does_not_ fit all. <g>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Venti
spv...@bhk-limited.com
If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is
because he marches to the beat of a different drum. Let him keep
pace to that beat - no matter how distant or muffled it may seem.
-- Henry David Thoreau
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mika Jarmusz
Steveさんがいい訳を出して下さいましたが、先の例文に限って言えば、「固有」はhistorically に吸収されてしまったようです。
integral は枕詞ではないとは思いますが、
"Takeshima is an integral part of our sovereign territory."
は、「固有」の入らない、単なる
「竹島は我が国の領土です」に一致するように感じます。
integral を抜いて
Takeshima is part of our sovereign territory. とすると、
「は」が『も』に入れ替わり、
「竹島も我が国の領土です」と相性がよくなります。
上の「も」は大辞林の（１）、すなわち「類似した事物を幾つか取り出し並べて提示する」で「一応」ぐらいの意がこもります。大辞林の（４）の「強調」とは区別してください。
訳を一つに絞ることはできないですが、indisputably はやっぱりわかりません。