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?
> 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.
Takeshima Islands controversy has some similarities to the Hans island controversy between Canada and Denmark. Nothing else to add however at this point. Tim Oftebro
> > 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?
----- Original Message ----- From: ""Doreen Simmons"" <JZ8D-S...@asahi-net.or.jp> To: <honyaku@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:18 PM Subject: Japanese _what_ territory?
> Greetings yakkers!
> 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 writes: >> 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: spve...@bhk-limited.com URL: http://www.bhk-limited.com Blog: http://spventi.wordpress.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
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).
"An integral part of Japan's sovereign territory" has been used by Kantei and MOFA.
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?
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.
