The Joongang Ilbo today has run the column originally intended for August 25th. It's about people objecting to the name "Sea of Japan," and is compiled from comments to the mid-August posts "Singer Kim Jang-hun puts East Sea, Dokdo back in US papers" and "More ads 'correcting the errors' of Sea of Japan."
This week they didn't run my blog address under the column. For those not aware of the weekly column's premise, since they haven't run any prefatory remarks alongside it, take a look at the explanation I gave on the posts here and here. It's not really a "column" in that I'm not writing my own opinion, but rather I've been asked to present the opinions of those who comment on my site.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Delighted to read that ANYONE at all of Korean descent is insisting upon correct use of English. This IS truly a first. Unfortunately it is selfishly focused on three fairly innocuous words. If only some conscientious Korean would be so bold as to take out full-page ads in major newspapers condemning the resolute failure of Koreans to learn proper English, and instead just making it up as they go along (which has gotten us into no end of bother as well).
As long as we are advising one another on how to speak our respective languages, I have a few suggestions of my own. The Korean language seems to be inundated by synonyms, words and phrases that so alike in meaning, that it's a wonder Koreans are able to communicate at all...instead having to devote most of the endeavor to clarification. I don't claim to be any authority on the Korean language, but it does seem to have a shockingly limited range of expression for a people mention their 5000 years of cultural heritage so frequently.
I don't suppose anyone has had the gall to mention that for all the money this gentleman has spent "educating" the English-speaking world about it's own language...that there are many more pressing issues to address than the name of a mere puddle betwixt a superpower and...another country.
Dear Mike,
yes, I would have to agree you are no expert in the Korean language if you're so confused by synonyms. If you can't tell 순수하다 from 수진하다 then that's your fault, not the Korean language. Study hard, and someday the clarity will come.
Great article Brian. Interesting point about the fact that in English, the body of water South of Korea is called Korean Strait.
More interesting is that in Korean, the sea to the west of Korea is known as the West Sea, to the south, it's known as the South Sea (Korean Strait), and to get it looking all nice and neat, the final hurdle is getting everyone to accept the Sea of Japan as East Sea.
It seems like Korea wants all of the waters around the country to refer to themselves.
I'm down with G-Girl on this.. synonyms and shades of meaning (heck, metaphors, allusions, similes, what have you) are what make languages rich and expressive..
maybe difficult to learn, but a subtle tool when used well.
LOL.. my captcha is "death"
I'm blaming Brian if I die!
Gomushin Girl, since you apparently claim to be an expert you probably knew that I was referring to synonyms or words that are used to mean seemingly EVERYTHING, not homonyms. The phrase "saesang hae" seems to mean everything from "in this life", "oh man", "oh my god" to everything else. My confusion doesn't arise of out ignorance, just the overuse of phrases to express a wide range of feelings and ideas that have their own subtle differences.
Perhaps if you study English much harder, clarity will come.
my favorite part:
"...and textbooks."
hahaha.
Saying that Koreans are arrogant for insisting that English speakers are wrong for using the term "Sea of Japan," on the basis that "Sea or Japan," is the proper name in English, denies the English language of its malebility.
The fact is, is that the English lexicon expands drastically from year to year as terms become coined. Last spring, people who were conservative government protesters became known as tea baggers. While that term evolved naturally into the English language, Koreans are merely trying to coin there term "The East Sea," as a politically neutral description. It is a term that isn't natural, but it isn't arrogant either. It is simply Koreans wanting acknowlegement.
So what is arrogant about people mounting a campaign to change the name of something, or at least adopting secondary terms to describe something? It is like saying that groups that work on behalf of disabled people are arrogant for trying to pass laws changing the term from handicapped to disabled. Now both terms exist in English, and nothing has changed, because English is a maleble language that changes.
These days some cartographers consider using the term East Sea, because of Korean teabaggers who complained about the term "Sea of Japan." The term Sea of Japan will probably never disappear but at least people are beginning to acknowlege the other term. Personally I don't care what it is called and I don't think that the issue deserves much debate. A suitible term could be "The East Asian Sea of industrial Waste," or "Korea and Japan's Shit Bucket," or "It Burns, It Burns."
I think that rather than pointless exegesis on the malleability of the English language, we should actually look at what the true issue is here: Koreans, having been made to believe that their history and nation are of international consequence, are beginning to realise the truth - that they have never really mattered much at all. It must sting a little. Let's just be patient with them and hope that they shut up and stop embarrassing themselves soon.
I thought the teabaggers' name came from GOP conservatives proudly acknowledging that they're opening wide for corporate America.
@3gyupsal
"Koreans are merely trying to coin there term "The East Sea," as a politically neutral description."
"Politically neutral"??? The motivation here is nothing BUT political.
It's one thing to try to change accepted terminology in YOUR OWN country. But attempting to change accepted terminology in another country (a country with whom you don't even share a common official language) is VERY different, and is pretty much the definition of arrogance.
Peter wrote:
It's one thing to try to change accepted terminology in YOUR OWN country. But attempting to change accepted terminology in another country (a country with whom you don't even share a common official language) is VERY different, and is pretty much the definition of arrogance.
The IHO itself provides the basis for Korea to do this:
1. United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographic Names (UNCSGN) Resolution III/20 "Names of Features beyond a Single Sovereignty" (1977):
The Conference,
1. Recommends that countries sharing a given geographical feature under different names should endeavour, as far as feasible, to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned;
2. Further recommends that when countries sharing a given geographical feature do not succeed in agreeing on a common name, it should be a general rule of international cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted. A policy of accepting only one or some of such names while excluding the rest would be inconsistent in principle as well as inexpedient in practice.
2. IHO Technical Resolution A.4.2.6. (1974):
It is recommended that where two or more countries share a given geographical feature (such as a bay, a strait, channel or archipelago) under different names, they should endeavor to reach agreement on a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name forms of each of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons prevent this practice on small scale charts. (source)
@Kushibo
That doesn't, in any way, change the fact that it's a jerk-ass thing to do. I have every legal right to constantly correct my friends' grammar, but doing so would still make me an arrogant prick.
I didn't endorse it, just pointed out that there is in fact a legal justification for it. Personally, I don't care much for the private efforts to bring this to the general public (e.g., the ads).
But as for government efforts, I don't see how this makes them any more (or less) jerkass or arrogant than the French for having pushed for the English Channel to also be recognized in international officialdom as La Manche.
Post a Comment