|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
doggyji
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Location: Toronto - Hamilton - Vineland - St. Catherines
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
It still makes no sense. Even if the kanji come from the original Korean names (assuming Koreans used those same hanja for their place names) it does not follow that the map maker was referring to Dokdo. If he was basing the map on Korean hanja probably he would have just copied the map directly from a Korean source in that case, but then why the so-called mis-spelling? Or maybe he copied it from a Chinese source, which has a different Japanese reading when read aloud? This is not specified.
The point, as you mentioned, is that there is no evidence that the island the professor is calling "Jasando" is Dokdo (and the pronunciation does matter in the sense that he is saying the map has miss-spellings, and even that Jasando is an old slang word for Dokdo, yet he doesn't go into to any detail at all). |
I don't have any evidence that Jasando was not one of the old Korean names for the isletes, either. I'm not an expert. I need to look further into it to make a conclusion. Thus, I will save my comments on it. But why do you still say the pronunciation matters here? 爵 as a miss-spelling of 鬱. This is the only miss-spelling the professor talked about. How does the pronunciation take a role in this? Especially, I don't get this part:
| visitorq wrote: |
| Or maybe he copied it from a Chinese source, which has a different Japanese reading when read aloud? |
What about reading aloud? Why would the map maker have to actually pronounce the characters? It can be all about writing characters that does not involve any auditory activity in this case, right?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Combined with the fact that it's in the totally wrong location on the map, and is only 1 island (not two islets) gives it zero credibility at all. |
Especially if another islet that is not dokdo/takeshima is right in the position of Jasando on the map. Is it so? Also, it seems the whole map was not meant to be very accurate. Lumping the two isletes together and misplacing it with regards to the closest island does not surprise me. As I keep saying, it seems to me that the real thing that matters about the map is whether Jasando was one of the old names for the islets or not and Jasando must be something as there is no island called Jasando today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| doggyji wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| The point is that there is no evidence that the island the professor is calling "Jasando" is Dokdo (and the pronunciation does matter in the sense that he is saying it's a miss-spelling, and even an old slang word for Dokdo, yet he doesn't go into to detail at all). |
I don't have any evidence that Jasanso was not one of the old Korean names for the isletes, either. I'm not an expert. I need to look further into it to make a conclusion. Thus, I will save my comments on it. But why do you still say the pronunciation matters here? 爵 as a miss-spelling of 鬱. This is the only miss-spelling the professor talked about. How does the pronunciation take a role in this? |
My only issue was about the article's credibility. Those kanji are old, and the pronunciation (potentially) matters a great deal, because for all we know it isn't a mis-spelling. Since any given kanji can have several totally different pronunciations when read aloud, some of which are very obscure (esp. in old names like this), it could be that it's simply referring to another island altogether of a different name. I'm not sure though, but those kanji don't even look very similar... If you can dig up all the possible readings of those kanji and prove that the kanji for ("jak") doesn't have any other plausible readings, I'll admit there's no issue there.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Combined with the fact that it's in the totally wrong location on the map, and is only 1 island (not two islets) gives it zero credibility at all. |
Especially if another islet that is not dokdo/takeshima is right in the position of Jasando on the map. Is it so? Also, it seems the whole map was not meant to be very accurate. Lumping the two isletes together and misplacing it with regards to the closest island does not surprise me. As I keep saying, it seems to me that the real thing that matters about the map is whether Jasando was one of the old names for the islets or not. |
I think the geography matters. These are not insignificant discrepancies; it's showing what they consider to be "Dokdo" as a single island, larger than Ulleungdo, and on the total opposite side. That pretty much eliminates it as evidence in a court room. As for the Jasando thing, if you can dig up something, kindly share it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| doggyji wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Or maybe he copied it from a Chinese source, which has a different Japanese reading when read aloud? |
What about reading aloud? Why would the map maker have to actually pronounce the characters? It can be all about writing characters that does not involve any auditory activity in this case, right? |
I was referring to differences in pronunciation between the Chinese reading and the Korean reading of the same hanja. We don't know for certain that he copied the map directly from a Korean one (else why would there be the wrong kanji in the first place)? Those two kanji are fairly different, so it's kind of suspicious.
For example, one person could have 'read' the Korean hanja (without knowing a word of Korean), or else got it from a Chinese map of Korea, and dictated it to the map maker later using the Chinese pronunciation. Or he could have had multiple sources, including a Japanese one. Confusion with kanji arises often in Japanese. Point is we don't know what the map maker's sources were, it could have included oral input, or he could have just copied it all. There are no details given about this in the article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doggyji
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Location: Toronto - Hamilton - Vineland - St. Catherines
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| doggyji wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Or maybe he copied it from a Chinese source, which has a different Japanese reading when read aloud? |
What about reading aloud? Why would the map maker have to actually pronounce the characters? It can be all about writing characters that does not involve any auditory activity in this case, right? |
I was referring to differences in pronunciation between the Chinese reading and the Korean reading of the same hanja. We don't know for certain that he copied the map directly (else why would there be the wrong kanji in the first place)? Those two kanji are fairly different, so it's kind of suspicious.
For example, one person could have 'read' the Korean hanja (without knowing a word of Korean), or read it on a Chinese map with slightly different (but similar kanji) and dictated it to the map maker later using the Chinese pronunciation. This kind of confusion arises often in Japanese. Point is we don't know what the map maker's sources were, it could have included oral input, or he could have just copied it all. There are no details given about this in the article. |
Sure, from that short article, we cannot draw whole lot of conclusions. There are many possibilities you can think about things of the past. We do not know how exactly the map was made. We do not even know if the map maker drew those islands just from verbal descriptions by the locals or he actually went there to see them or he directly copied it from another map. In history, we usually talk about the most plausible scenarios although we cannot always be 100% certain. One thing we can say here is that there is a very high chance that 爵陵 is actually referring to 鬱陵 as there is no other candidate island to occupy the position in the sea. If that is not 鬱陵, what can it be? What is the most feasible possibility? A lot of very old maps are not so geographically accurate to our standards. In my opinion, including the geographic part at all and placing the geographic part not so accurately are slight different matters.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Point is we don't know what the map maker's sources were, it could have included oral input, or he could have just copied it all. There are no details given about this in the article. |
Then why did you try to dismiss the professor's explanation so decisively rather than just suggest a different possiblity? As you said, there can be different possibilities and there is a certain chance that the professor can be right. Why did you try to dismiss the part about confusion between 爵陵 and 鬱陵 so quick? That doesn't seem very fair to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| doggyji wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| doggyji wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Or maybe he copied it from a Chinese source, which has a different Japanese reading when read aloud? |
What about reading aloud? Why would the map maker have to actually pronounce the characters? It can be all about writing characters that does not involve any auditory activity in this case, right? |
I was referring to differences in pronunciation between the Chinese reading and the Korean reading of the same hanja. We don't know for certain that he copied the map directly (else why would there be the wrong kanji in the first place)? Those two kanji are fairly different, so it's kind of suspicious.
For example, one person could have 'read' the Korean hanja (without knowing a word of Korean), or read it on a Chinese map with slightly different (but similar kanji) and dictated it to the map maker later using the Chinese pronunciation. This kind of confusion arises often in Japanese. Point is we don't know what the map maker's sources were, it could have included oral input, or he could have just copied it all. There are no details given about this in the article. |
Sure, from that short article, we cannot draw whole lot of conclusions. There are many possibilities you can think about things of the past. We do not know how exactly the map was made. We do not even know if the map maker drew those islands just from verbal descriptions by the locals or he actually went there to see them or he directly copied it from another map. In history, we usually talk about the most plausible scenarios although we cannot always be 100% certain. One thing we can say here is that there is a very high chance that 爵陵 is actually referring to 鬱陵 as there is no other candidate island to occupy the position in the sea. If that is not 鬱陵, what can it be? What is the most feasible possibility? A lot of very old maps are not so geographically accurate to our standards. In my opinion, including the geographic part at all and placing the geographic part not so accurately are slight different matters. |
You are right that the map makes it nearly impossible to draw any conclusions. It's really just a very bad map, which is why is why it's not a credible source. You say geography is not important; well I would counter and say that if the geography is so far off that he'd place "dokdo" as a single large island on the opposite side of "ulleungdo", then the geography might be so off that even "jakreung" (or however you pronounce the name in Japanese) is a different island altogether.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Point is we don't know what the map maker's sources were, it could have included oral input, or he could have just copied it all. There are no details given about this in the article. |
Then why did you try to dismiss the professor's explanation so decisively rather than just suggest a different possiblity? As you said, there can be different possibilities and there is a certain chance that the professor can be right. Why did you try to dismiss the part about confusion between 爵陵 and 鬱陵 so quick? That doesn't seem very fair to me. |
Oh come off it man... I'm quick to dismiss obvious propaganda, which is all that article is. It starts off by stating that the map "clearly shows the existence of Dokdo as Korean territory", when as I've pointed out it's not even remotely clear, not in the slightest. You've even admitted it. Fact is it most certainly does not show "Dokdo" at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Oh, the Japanese are the ones who are whining?? Get real. We'll see how smug you are when Japan takes it by force.  I'm guessing a decade or less. |
Only Japan isn't going to do anything of the sort. They (and you) will still be complaining about it 50 years from now.
And even if they were...it's a moot point until they do.
Ask yourself this. When Korea took it back, why didn't the Japanese try and re-take it? It's been decades since then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Ask yourself this. When Korea took it back, why didn't the Japanese try and re-take it? It's been decades since then. |
Are you that ignorant of history UrMy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Ask yourself this. When Korea took it back, why didn't the Japanese try and re-take it? It's been decades since then. |
Are you that ignorant of history UrMy? |
Well he's claiming that that Japan WILL soon...my question is why then and not before or now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Oh, the Japanese are the ones who are whining?? Get real. We'll see how smug you are when Japan takes it by force. I'm guessing a decade or less. |
Only Japan isn't going to do anything of the sort. They (and you) will still be complaining about it 50 years from now.
And even if they were...it's a moot point until they do.
Ask yourself this. When Korea took it back, why didn't the Japanese try and re-take it? It's been decades since then. |
Um, are you trying convince me, or yourself?... It's fairly obvious to me that you're simply hoping you're right, but don't really have any real reason to think that way, or understand the Japanese position on it at all... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Guri Guy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Ask yourself this. When Korea took it back, why didn't the Japanese try and re-take it? It's been decades since then. |
Are you that ignorant of history UrMy? |
Well he's claiming that that Japan WILL soon...my question is why then and not before or now? |
Because things change over time. Obviously. It's only recently that Japan is considering breaking away from its pacifist laws (which simply wasn't going to happen in the 50's). They've already re-interpreted it in some cases to allow them to send troops to Iraq etc. it's only a matter of time till they do away with it altogether (Japan is 'forbidden' to arm itself only as a technicality).
Honestly, Japan is nothing like what you seem to imagine it to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doggyji
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Location: Toronto - Hamilton - Vineland - St. Catherines
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| You are right that the map makes it nearly impossible to draw any conclusions. It's really just a very bad map, which is why is why it's not a credible source. You say geography is not important; well I would counter and say that if the geography is so far off that he'd place "dokdo" as a single large island on the opposite side of "ulleungdo", then the geography might be so off that even "jakreung" (or however you pronounce the name in Japanese) is a different island altogether. |
Are there any better candidates for those two islands in East Sea/Sea of Japan? It does not seem so. I am not saying geography does not matter at all. I just said inclusion of a certain geographic place has its own significance. Whether to dismiss the geographic value of an old map is up to a subject judgment after all. The map has other major islands such as Jeju, Geoje and Tsusima and some big cities. It just seems you are very willing to totally dismiss what the map can inform us.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Oh come off it man... I'm quick to dismiss obvious propaganda, which is all that article is. It starts off by stating that the map "clearly shows the existence of Dokdo as Korean territory", when as I've pointed out it's not even remotely clear, not in the slightest. You've even admitted it. Fact is it most certainly does not show "Dokdo" at all. |
If there is strong evidence that Jasando was indeed one of the old names for the islets, then I believe most would agree that the map has its own value with regards to the historical legitimacy issue although the map alone might not be decisive evidence. I guess the official maps made by the Japanese government are the important ones and there is no official Japanese map that includes the islets as Japanese territory before 1905, right? From what I have read, there is no Japanese university history professor who insists Japan has historical legitimacy on the islets. But I know of a few Japanese professors who do not agree with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan's stance on the islets. Prof. Naito Seitsu is one of them.
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200503/200503180043.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japanese-scholars.html
However, it seems a dozen of Japanese international law scholars have their cases to support the Japan's claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| doggyji wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| You are right that the map makes it nearly impossible to draw any conclusions. It's really just a very bad map, which is why is why it's not a credible source. You say geography is not important; well I would counter and say that if the geography is so far off that he'd place "dokdo" as a single large island on the opposite side of "ulleungdo", then the geography might be so off that even "jakreung" (or however you pronounce the name in Japanese) is a different island altogether. |
Are there any better candidates for those two islands in East Sea/Sea of Japan? It does not seem so. I am not saying geography does not matter at all. I just said inclusion of a certain geographic place has its own significance. Whether to dismiss the geographic value of an old map is up to a subject judgment after all. The map has other major islands such as Jeju, Geoje and Tsusima and some big cities. It just seems you are very willing to totally dismiss what the map can inform us. |
I dunno, Jukdo most likely? (formerly known as Usando, which is what the Japanese kanji actually say - not 'Jasando'). Why would the islets (Takeshima) which are as close to mainland Japan as to mainland Korea, be drawn as one big island right up next to Korea's mainland? Makes no sense at all, it's just too huge a discrepancy.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Oh come off it man... I'm quick to dismiss obvious propaganda, which is all that article is. It starts off by stating that the map "clearly shows the existence of Dokdo as Korean territory", when as I've pointed out it's not even remotely clear, not in the slightest. You've even admitted it. Fact is it most certainly does not show "Dokdo" at all. |
If there is strong evidence that Jasando was indeed one of the old names for the islets, then I believe most would agree that the map has its own value with regards to the historical legitimacy issue although the map alone might not be decisive evidence. I guess the official maps made by the Japanese government are the important ones and there is no official Japanese map that includes the islets as Japanese territory before 1905, right? From what I have read, there is no Japanese university history professor who insists Japan has historical legitimacy on the islets. But I know of a few Japanese professors who do not agree with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan's stance on the islets. Prof. Naito Seitsu is one of them.
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200503/200503180043.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japanese-scholars.html
However, it seems a dozen of Japanese international law scholars have their cases to support the Japan's claim. |
Look, there is a lot of propaganda, some of it even comes from Japan. I am not interested in anything but facts. If you can prove unequivocally that among other things "Jasando" (whatever the hell that is) was Dokdo, that would help out slightly. You'd still need a Korean map pre-dating 1905 with the name "Dokdo" on it to really have case though.
As for Japan, it matters not in the least if they have a map prior to 1905. The claim is not historical, it's one of terra nulius (as mentioned earlier). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
