竹島問題の歴史

20.8.08

Professor Claims Korea's National Institute of Korean History Mistranslated 1714 Passage

In his book, "History of Dokdo, Ulleungdo" (독도, 울릉도의 역사), Yeongnam University History Professor Kim Ho-dong (金皓東 - 김호동) claims that Korea's National Institute of Korean History (국사편찬위원회) has mistranslated a July 22, 1714 passage from King Sukjong's "Bogweoljeong-o" (補闕正吳 - 보궐정오).

The passage was a report from Jo Seok-myeong (趙錫命), who had been sent to Gangwon Province (江原道 - 강원도) to inspect the coastal defenses of the Yeongdong (嶺東 - 영도) region. In his report, he said that the people in the ports there told him that there was an island visible to the east of Ulleungdo that was on the Japanese border. The following is the relevant passage, Professor Kim Ho-dong's translation, and my English translation:

辛酉江原道御使趙錫命 論嶺東海防疎虞狀略曰 詳聞浦人言 平海蔚珍 距鬱陵島最近 船路無少礙 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境.

포인(浦人)의 말을 상세히 듣건대, '평해平海), 울진(蔚珍)은 울릉도(鬱陵島)와 거리가 가장 가까와서 뱃길에 조금도 장애가 없고, 울릉도 동쪽에 섬이 보이는데 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다'고 하였습니다.

I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, "Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is on the Japanese border."

Now, HERE is the translation of the passage by Korea's Korea's National Institute of Korean History (국사편찬위원회) and my English translation:

辛酉江原道御使趙錫命 論嶺東海防疎虞狀略曰 詳聞浦人言 平海蔚珍 距鬱陵島最近 船路無少礙 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境.

“포인(浦人)의 말을 상세히 듣건대, ‘평해(平海)·울진(蔚珍)은 울릉도(鬱陵島)와 거리가 가장 가까와서 뱃길에 조금도 장애(障礙)가 없고, 울릉도 동쪽에는 섬이 서로 잇달아 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다.’고 하였습니다.

I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, "Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. East of Ulleungdo, islands connect to each other to reach the Japanese border.

In a footnote on the translation in his book (pp. 119 - 120) , Professor Kim Ho-dong wrote the following:

그런데 국편의 최근 번역에는 이것을 "포인(浦人)의 말을 상세히 듣건대, ‘평해(平海)·울진(蔚珍)은 울릉도(鬱陵島)와 거리가 가장 가까와서 뱃길에 조금도 장애(障礙)가 없고, 울릉도 동쪽에는 섬이 서로 잇달아 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다.’고 하였습니다'라고 잘못 번역하고 있다.

However, the National Institute of Korean History has recently been mistranslating the passage as, "I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, "Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. East of Ulleungdo, islands connect to each other to reach the Japanese border."

Professor Kim does not offer an explanation for the mistranslation by Korea's National Institute of Korean History, but I think they mistranslated it because they realized the passage supported Japan's claim to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). The passage was essentially saying that the island visible to the east of Ulleungdo was Japanese territory. In those days, a country's farthermost islands represented its border. Apparently, the Korean fishermen had seen Japanese fishing boats coming from the direction of the island and assumed it was Japanese.

If the Koreans had believed the island to be Korean territory, then they would not have referred to it as being "on the Japanese border," but, instead, would have referred to it with an expression similar to "接于我國境" (우리 국경에 접해있다), which means "on our country's border."

If you look at the full passage, you can see that the Korean official was worried about Japanese territory being so close to Korea, which was why he was urging the government to strengthen defenses in the Gangwondo area.

Gangwon Provincial inspector Jo Seok-myeong (趙錫命) discussed the neglected coastal defenses in the Yeongdong region. Here is a summary:

I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, "Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is on the Japanese border." In 1708 and 1712, strange-looking ships drifted to the borders of Goseong (高城) and Ganseong (杆城), so we know that Japanese ships frequently come and go. The government, however, says that the vast sea is a barrier, so there is no need to worry, but how can we be sure that a future war will not break out in the Yeongdong region instead of the Yeongnam region? We cannot allow even a little delay in taking measures to be thoroughly prepared.

In accordance with the request, the Myodang (廟堂) requested that Gangwondo be reprimanded to cracked down on its military officials.

106 comments:

  1. Gerry,

    울릉도 동쪽에 섬이 있습니다.

    그 섬은 일본의 경계와 접해있습니다.

    -----

    결국, 그 섬은 일본의 경계 속에 포함되어 있지 않습니다.

    그 섬은 일본의 경계와는 떨어져 있지만, 일본의 경계와는 가깝게 있는 것입니다.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gerry,

    당신의 한국어 실력은 형편없군요.

    -----

    을릉도 동쪽에는 섬이 서로 잇달아 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다.

    -----

    위의 문장에서 "잇달아"의 의미는 서로 가깝다는 의미입니다. 또한 같은 방향을 가진다는 의미도 있습니다.

    그래서, 을릉도는 독도와 가깝다는 의미이고, 을릉도와 독도는 일본의 경계쪽으로 이어져 있다는 의미입니다.

    을릉도와 독도가 일본의 경계와 잇달아 있지 않다면, 독도의 위치는 울릉도의 북쪽이 될 수도 있는 문제입니다.

    그리고 결정적으로 경계와 접해있다는 말은, 경계와는 떨어져 있지만 경계와는 가깝다는 말입니다. 결국 독도는 한국땅이라는 말입니다.

    Gerry, 당신의 주장의 핵심은 무엇입니까?

    한국어 번역이 서툴러서 핵심에서 벗어났군요.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gerry,

    당신에게 도움이 되도록 글을 씁니다.

    "잇달아"는 "잇달다"에서 나온 말입니다.

    "잇달다"의 의미는 "뒤를 이어서 연결하다"의 의미입니다.

    단어의 의미는 문장속에서 조금씩 변합니다. 그렇지만, 전체적인 의미는 동일합니다. 비유적으로 단어가 쓰이기도 하기 때문입니다.

    따라서, "잇달다"는 연속적인 것을 나타내기도 하고, 가깝게 발생하는 사건을 나타내기도 하고, 같은 방향을 가진 것을 나타내기도 합니다.

    본래의 의미에서 더 넓어진 의미가 되는 것입니다. 이런 의미의 변화는 모든 국가의 언어에서 나타납니다.

    "잇달다"의 근본적인 의미는 연속적이라는 것입니다.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lord,

    국사편찬위원회가 번역한 것 말고 그 원본을 봐야 합니다. 그 원본에 "잇달아"라는 말이 없습니다.

    영남대학교 국사학 교수인 김호동의 한국어 실력도 형편없습니까?

    그 한문을 읽을 수 있습니까?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gerry,

    "잇달아"가 있던 없던 중요하지 않습니다.

    문제의 핵심은, 독도가 일본의 경계에 접해있다는 것입니다.

    독도가 한국땅이라고 말하는 것입니다.

    당신은 위의 한문 원본을 어떻게 번역합니까?

    gerry, 한문 문장의 핵심은 무엇입니까?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lord,

    없는 것을 있는 것으로 번역한 것이 어떻게 중요하지 않을 수 있습니까? 그 것은 큰 문제입니다.

    그 어부들은 그 섬이 한국 영토로 알았다면 "왜경에 접해있다"는 표현을 안 썼을 겁니다. 대신, "우리 국경에 접해있다" (接于我國境)는 식으로 썼을 겁니다.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gerry,

    당신의 주장은 한국에서 받아들여지지 않습니다.

    한국 사람이 "그 섬이 우리 국경에 접해있다"는 표현으로 섬을 묘사할 단정적인 이유가 없습니다.

    독도가 한국의 경계에 접촉해 있는 것이 중요한 것이 아니라, 일본의 경계에 접해있기 때문에 한국에서는 일본의 침략을 걱정한 것입니다.

    당신의 주장이 설득력이 있으려면, 먼저 한국 사람들의 입장에서 생각해 보시기 바랍니다.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lord,

    이유가 있습니다. 그 한국 어부들은 그 섬으로부터 일본 어선들이 자주 온 것을 보고, "아 그 섬이 일본 영토인가보다"라는 판단을 했을 겁니다. 그러니까 그 섬이 보인다는 말만 했고 가봤다는 말을 하지 않았습니다.

    지금 바쁘니까 더 이상 토론을 할 시간이 없습니다. 안녕히 계습시오.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gerry,

    "일본의 경계와 접촉해 있다"

    이문장의 번역이 문제의 핵심입니다.

    일본의 경계와 접촉해 있는 것은, 일본의 경계와 떨어져 있다는 이야기입니다.

    당신의 주장을 받아들이려면, 일본의 경계에 속해있다고 했어야 합니다. 다시 말해서, 일본의 경계에 포함되어 있다라고 했어야 합니다. 그래야 독도가 일본땅이라고 번역할 수 있습니다.

    일본의 경계와 접촉해 있다고 했으니, 독도는 당연히 한국땅이라는 이야기 입니다.

    당신의 주장을 한국에서 받아들이지 않는 분명한 이유입니다.

    Gerry, 한국에서도 받아들일 수 있는 증거를 제발 가져오시기 바랍니다.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lord,

    마지막입니다. 이 질문을 생각해보십시오.

    "우리 국사편찬위원회가 이 1714년 문장을 왜 그렇게 번역했습니까?"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gerry,

    일본의 경계에 접해있다고 했기 때문입니다. 그래서, 그렇게 번역한 것입니다. 한문을 한글로 완전히 번역하기에는 힘든 면이 있습니다.

    일본의 경계에 포함되어 있다고 했으면, 그런 번역을 나오지 않았을 것입니다.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gerry, lord,

    도중에 끼어들어 미안합니다.한문의 해석으로서는, 나는 lord의 해석이 올바르다고 생각합니다.(Gerry,미안해요) 다만, 이 문장으로 말하는 Ulleungdo의 동쪽에 있는 섬은 Jukdo라고 생각합니다.
    Liancourt Rocks라면 Ulleungdo의 남동에 있을 것입니다.이 문장은 왜구의 해를 강조하고, 방위에 노력하지 않으면 안 된다고 하는 주지입니다.

    일본의 배가 빈번히 출몰하고 있는 것은 Ulleungdo의 근처여, 방위는 Jukdo의 방위입니다.

    일본인들이 Jukdo에 들르고 나서 Ulleungdo에 건넜다고 하는 기술도 일본의 문헌에는 있습니다.
    Jukdo가 일본의 영역과 접하고 있으면 한국인이 생각해도 불가사의는 없습니다.

    덧붙여 여기서 말하는 「야마토경계」는 서양인이 생각하는 borderline와 같은 국경이 아니고, 「일본의 영역」이라고 하는 의미라고 나는 생각합니다.

    한자의 「경계」에는 영역이라고 하는 의미가 있기 때문입니다.이것은 일본 만이 아니고, 한국에서도 같다고 생각합니다.

    ReplyDelete
  13. pacifist,

    당신의 주장의 앞부분을 인정합니다.

    일본의 경계와 접하고 있다는 말은, 한국의 땅을 이야기 하는 것입니다.

    당신 주장의 뒷부분은, 한국에서 전혀 받아들이지 않고 있습니다.

    2.4km 떨어진 섬을 맑은 날에만 볼 수 있다고 당신들이 해석했던 것과 마찬가지로, 당신들의 주장은 한국에서 받아들이지 않고 있습니다.

    바로 2.4km 앞에 붙어 있는 섬이 일본의 경계라고 생각하는 것은 전혀 상식에 맞지 않습니다.

    제발 한국에서도 받아들일 수 있는 주장을 펼쳐주세요.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm writing in English. The island east of Ulleungdo can't be Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) because Liancourt Rocks is located 92 km southeast, not east.

    I think the original text referred to Jukdo, an small island 2.2km east of Ulleungdo.

    There is no definite proof that the text mentioning Liancourt Rocks, it didn't mention one day voyage, it didn't mention that it consisted of two rocky islets etc.

    The original text was written in order to give attention about protection of Korea from outer enemies - especially Japanese.

    Japanese fishermen used to reach Jukdo first and then went to Ulleungdo according to old documents in the late 17th century when they first met with Koreans in Ulleungdo.

    So it is natural that Korean people thought "Japanese always come from the direction of Jukdo".
    So it is no wonder if they wrote that beyond Jukdo was thought to be Japanese area (倭境).

    As to the text correction, it seems that an interpretation of the word 島嶼 changed. The original meaning of 島 is a (large) island, 嶼 is a small island, so 島嶼 means various plural islands. (But sometimes 島嶼 means one island...)

    If they translated the word as one island, they may fear that readers would think it was not Liancourt Rocks but Jukdo (as Liancourt Rocks consisted of two islets). So they re-translated the word as plural islands. But as I mentioned above, I think the island(s) east of Ulleungdo was Jukdo (or Jukdo and 観音島), not Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. lord,

    영어라도 썼습니다만, 이 문장은 한반도의 방위를 호소하는 문장입니다.당시의 일본의 배는 Jukdo에 들러, 그 후에 Ullengdo에 상륙하고 있었다는 문헌이 남아 있습니다.

    조선의 사람들에게 있어서는 Jukdo의 저 편이 일본의 영역이었습니다.
    Ulleungdo의 동쪽의 섬이 일본의 영역에 접하고 있다고 하는 감각은 나에게는 잘 이해할 수 있습니다.

    그것은 조선의 사람들을 위협하는 존재입니다.그런데 , 이것이 92 km 멀어진 남동의 이와시마라면 당시는 하루(하룻밤) 걸리는 거리이기 때문에, 위협에는 느껴지지 않습니다.
    문장 전체의 주지를 생각하면, 이것은 Jukdo 이외에는 있을 수 없다고 생각합니다.

    이 문장은 한반도의 방위를 논한 것이어, 국경을 논한 것이 아닌 것도 강조해 두고 싶습니다.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lord, Pacifist,

    울릉도 바로 옆에 있는 죽도까지 일본 국경이 이르러와 있었다 주장이 상식에 맞지 않습니다. 남의 국경이 자기 나라 섬까지 접해있다는 관념이 없었습니다.

    마찬가지로 울릉도 동쪽에 보이던 섬이 한국 영토이었다면 "일본 국경에 접해있다"는 표현을 쓰진 않았을 겁니다. 그러니까 그때 한국 어부들은 그 섬이 일본 영토라는 뜻으로 "일본 국경에 접해있다"는 말을 쓴 것이었습니다.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pacifist,

    2.4km 떨어진 섬은, 맑은 날씨 뿐만 아니라 비가 오는 날에도 항상 볼 수가 있습니다.

    또한 2.4km 이상 떨어진 곳도 볼 수 가 있어서, 왜적의 침입을 미리 알 수가 있습니다.

    그러므로, 일본이 침입하기 전에 잠시 머물렀던 곳은 독도임을 알 수 있습니다.

    당신의 주장은 상식에도 어긋나고, 한국에서는 인정하지 않고 있습니다.

    ReplyDelete
  18. gerry,

    당신도 상식을 생각한다는 것에 기쁩니다.

    상식이 항상 옳을 수는 없습니다. 하지만, 그 당시 사람들의 생각을 알아내는 것에 중요한 역할을 하기도 합니다.

    당신의 "경계에 접해있다"의 해석은 아무도 받아들이지 않습니다. 한자의 "접촉"과 "연결"의 의미를 잘 생각해 보시기 바랍니다.

    당신의 주장이 받아들여지려면, "포함되어 있다"고 했어야 합니다.

    ReplyDelete
  19. lord,

    당신은 다른 문헌과 혼동 하고 있습니다.여기에서는 「맑은 날로 보인다」라고 하는 기술은 없습니다.「Ulleungdo의 동쪽의 섬」이라고 밖에 쓰여지지 않습니다.

    Ulleungdo의 동쪽의 섬에서, 한반도의 방위에 관계하는 것은 Ulleungdo에 제일 가까운 섬, Jukdo 밖에 있을 수 없습니다.

    Ulleungdo로부터 한층 더 하루 걸리는 무인의 이와시마(Liancourt Rocks)라면 한반도의 사람은 위기감을 느끼지 않습니다.
    조선의 사람에게 익숙한 것이 있는 Ulleungdo의 바로 옆의 섬의 근처까지 일본인이 출몰하고 있는 것이 위기감을 부추기고 있습니다.

    Gerry,

    야마토의 「경계」로 접한다고 하는 말은 lord가 말하도록(듯이), 그 접하고 있는 섬자체는 일본에 포함되지 않습니다.악수한 상대의 손이 당신의 손이 아닌 것과 같은 것입니다.

    당신은 national border라고 하는 서양의 개념으로 생각하고 계시므로 이해할 수 없는 것이라고 생각합니다.

    반복해 말합니다만 한자의 「경계」에는 borderline라고 하는 의미 뿐만이 아니라 영역이라고 하는 의미가 있어, 영역은 토지 뿐만이 아니라 바다나 공간도 포함합니다.
    Jukdo의 저 편은 이제(벌써) 일본의 영역이다, 그러니까 방위력을 강화해야 하는, 이라고 말하는 것 라고 생각합니다.

    이것이 Liancourt Rocks라면 전체의 이야기의 줄거리로서 의미가 통하지 않게 됩니다.그렇게 반도로부터 멀어진 무인의 이와시마의 저 편으로 일본인이 있었더니 한반도는 영향을 받지 않습니다.사람이 살고 있는 Ulleungdo의 근처까지 일본인이 출몰하므로 위기감을 느끼고 있습니다.

    ReplyDelete
  20. gerry & pacifist,

    문서의 해석 문제는 상대방이 완전히 인정할 수 있어야 합니다. 한국이 동의할 수 없다면, 당신들에게도 문제가 있는 것입니다.

    gerry,

    이 문제와는 상관없지만, 한국의 documentary에서 동양과 서양의 인식의 차이를 보여주었습니다.

    A) 1, 2, 3

    "A"에서 가장 앞쪽에 있는 숫자는 무엇일까요?

    서양 사람은 "A"에서 멀리 있는 "3"이라는 숫자가 가장 앞쪽에 있다고 생각한다고 합니다.

    동양은 어떨까요?

    상대방의 입장에서 가장 앞쪽에 있는 것을 선택한다고 합니다. 따라서 숫자 "1"이 가장 앞에 있다고 생각한다고 합니다. 이 문제는 한국과 일본, 중국의 일반적인 사람들이 공통적으로 생각하는 문제입니다.

    어떻습니까? 재미있지 않나요.

    동양은 상대방을 배려하고 전체적인 조화를 중요하게 생각하는데, 서양은 자기 중심적인 사고 방식을 가지고 있습니다.

    동양을 이해하는데 조금이나마 도움이 되셨기를 바랍니다.

    ReplyDelete
  21. lord, Gerry,

    I'm trying to write in English too because I fear mistranslation into hanglu.

    To lord,

    You are mixing up the different documents. In the document we are discussing here is different from "Usando" or islands which could be viewed from peninsula on fine days.

    This document simply says "an island (or islands) at east of Ulleungdo". And the whole document is discussing about protection of Korean peninsula from outer enemies, espacially Japanese.

    So "the island at east of Ulleungdo" should be Jukdo, not uninhabited rock isltes 92 km away.

    They felt it was dangerous when they knew Japanese were frequently appeared at the place Korean people were living. If this was Jukdo, an island very close to Ullengdo (only 2.2 or 2.3 km apart) is "接" (touching) Japanese area - this would arise a feeling of impending crisis to Korean people.

    But if it referred to Liancourt Rocks - uninhabited rock islets at far beyond (one more voyage from Ulleungdo), would it give Korean people of Korean peninsula a sense of crisis? I don't think so.

    Gerry,

    As I repeatedly wrote before, the word "接" means "touch", or "very close". But it doesn't mean included in the touching subject.

    So the island at east of Ulleungdo was not in Japanese area. It was only touches, or very close to Japanese area.

    The word "倭境" does not always mean borderline, in this situation it may mean "area" because the space beyond an island lies only ocean, not lands.

    So I think the sentence means "the island at east of Ulleungdo is touching the Japanese area", which means "Beyond the island at east of Ulleungdo, there is a Japanese area".

    So the island should be Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Lord,

    화제의 취지로부터 조금 빗나가는 코멘트를 용서 바랍니다.
    문장의 해석보다, 이하의 링크를 참조해 주세요.

    http://www.sanin-chuo.co.jp/news/modules/news/article.php?storyid=444988006

    1836년의 에도시대 회선의 일종의 항로도를 보면 울릉도와 타케시마의 사이에 국경선이 있는 것이 명백합니다.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Gerry, the mistranslation some Koreans have made with this document is that some Koreans have stated this document is proof that Liancourt Rocks was referred to as Korean land. I don't know if I'd go so far.

    His Hanja to Korean language translation is the same as all other translations in that he uses ""접해있다“ to describe the relation between the island to the East and Japan's limits.

    However, this 1714 document is proof that the islands East of Ulleungdo were adjacent to, or bordered on the limits of Japan. It shows the islands were considered near but not part of Japanese territory. It also shows the Korean coastal residents were cognizant of Dokdo Island.

    This record says the island east of Ulleungdo is "접해있다“ the limits of Japan. It means the island was near or adjacent to the limits of Japan. With relation to territorial limits "접해있다“ means bordering on or adjacent to. Obviously this document shows the islands to the East and Japan's territorial limit are not one in the same or joined and thus Liancourt Rocks was not considered part of Japan.

    See the definitions.
    "접해있다“-1

    "접해있다“-1

    I have to agree with Lord's comment above.

    당신의 한국어 실력은 형편없군요.
    Basically what he is saying is your Korean sucks.

    But in reality you are just trying to mislead everyone here Gerry. We've explained the error of your incorrect translation numerous times, here and on other forums. You are showing how biased and stubborn you are. I beginning to wonder if there is something wrong with you.

    All translations say "접해있다“ Gerry. My Korean wife gave you the explanation of this before and so did Lord above. I find it disturbing that you would argue with a Korean native speaker about their own language. Imagine your outrage if a Korean English student of yours tried to tell you how to speak English.


    Now Pacifist, is trying to do damage control by saying dispute the fact Koreans sailed 130kms East at will, they suddenly declared the border of Japan to be near 2.2kms from Ulleungdo's shore.

    If you have even been to Ulleungdo (like I have) you would see how silly you are Pacifist. When you sail around Ulleungdo, Jukdo Island is so close it hardly even appears East at all, especially when you are around Jeodong and Dodong. To say that Koreans who sailed to Ulleungdo thought Jukdo was the limit is complete nonsense. Why would those who could sail so far suddenly develop such a limited concept of territorial perceptions?

    That's ridiculous Pacifist.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Poster above the map you are showing simply shows the travel route Japanese took sailing from North Japan to the Southern area. It has nothing to do with territorial ownership of Dokdo.

    The map of Hachiemon's trial is far more convincing of Korean ownership over Dokdo.

    Dokdo-Is-Korean

    ReplyDelete
  25. Steve,

    You too have a erroneous idea of 倭境 as Gerry's, perhaps because both of you are western people.

    You wrote; "they suddenly declared the border of Japan to be near 2.2kms from Ulleungdo's shore."

    But 倭境 doesn't mean the border.

    As I wrote before, 境 has various meanings including border, area etc. We asian people who use Chinese character know that 魔境, 佳境, 秘境 etc mean "area" not a border. (Please study yourself about these words with your Chinese dictionary.)

    So in this sentence 倭境 means "Japanese area". In my opinion, this "Japanese area" is different from today's territory.

    It only means the area Japanese are frequently seen. The text explains that Japanese ships were frequently appearing around Ulleungdo.

    In another words, you can say that Busan is very close to 倭境, Tushima is very close to 韓境.

    So the island east of Ulleungdo is definitely Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks. And I think this text won't be an evidence to show Japanese or Korean territories, because it is almost the same to say that Japanese are frequently seen around Ulleungdo and Jukdo.

    Remember that this text was written to appeal about importance of defence or protection from outer enemies. This is not a text to show territories.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Aside from what this document implies, I agree with pacifist in saying "境" does not always mean a borderline between two things/areas. Perhaps an appropriately corresponding English word may be "sphere" as seen in the expression "someone's sphere of influence."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Pacifist, Cloud, & Steve's wife,

    The passage 接于倭境 (접우왜경) means "touches" or "connects to" the "Japanese border." Here 倭境(왜경) does not mean "Japanese area" because they would not have used the character 接(이을 접), which means "connect," with "area." They would have used a character like 在(재) with area. In other words, they would have said "in (在) the Japanese area," not "connects (接) to the Japanese area."

    If you look at Korea's geography books from the early 1900s, you will see that Koreans used 接(접) to refer to their borders between the provinces and with China, but they used 在 with areas; such as, "亞細亞部에 在하다," which means "in the Asia region."

    With regards to the border between Korea and the Japanese island of Tsushima, Koreans used the phrase "日本對馬島와 相對로," which means "faces the Japanese island of Tsushima."

    Likewise, if Koreans had believed the island visible to the east of Ulleungdo to be Korean, then they would have used "faces Japan" (日本 相對로), not "on the Japanese border" (接于倭境).

    The fact that Koreans used the phrase "on the Japanese border" means that they believed the island to be Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  28. In my opinion,
    Gerry’s translation was wrong.
    About this “鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境”, Professor Kim Ho-dong (金皓東 - 김호동) translated like this : “울릉도 동쪽에 섬이 보이는데 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다”.
    And Gerry translated it wrongly into English like this : “Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is on the Japanese border”
    I will translate it “East of Ulleungdo, islands look at one another to reach the Japanese border.”

    1.島嶼
    Jukdo is entirely needless in order to mention about the protection from Japanese invasion, because it is extremely close to Ulleungdo. So, the 島嶼 surely includes Dokdo. But, Jukdo may or may not be included in 島嶼.

    2.
    相望 : look at each other or one another

    3.
    魔境 : the place where devils live.
    佳境 : a beautiful place
    秘境 : a mysterious place
    And, 倭境 : the place where the Japanese live => Oki

    p.s. : 接 means 'contact' or 'reach'

    ReplyDelete
  29. Gerry,

    I can't understand what you mean.
    The words 接 and 在 are different verbs.

    You can use both, for example, 京畿道接江原道(京畿道 touches 江原道) or 自宅在京畿道 (My house is in 京畿道) whatever, so you can't say if one used the verb 接, the word 倭境 shouldn't mean "area"...

    The Chinese character 境 is not the borderline here, an island is not connected with the borderline or the border.

    I don't think the Japanese people in those days had an idea of borderline but if they did, it must have been in the middle of the two islands or between an island and mainland. It can't be touched with each other.

    If they thought some lands or islands should be borders, then an island dosen't connected with another island which was a border.

    So 境 here can't be a borderline, border or island. It should be an "area", or "field". If the 倭境 was "Japanes area" or "Japanese field", there is no inconsistency.

    Japanese area is a vague idea, not Japanese territory. This idea may mean an area or field where Japanese people are frequently seen. Don't you understand what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  30. MyCoree's English translation:

    울릉도 동쪽에 섬이 보이는데 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다.

    "East of Ulleungdo, islands look at one another to reach the Japanese border.”


    MyCoree's English translation of Mr, Kim sentence is wrong, and he knows it because he is Korean.

    보이다 means "is visible," not "look at one another." Even a beginning student of Korean can tell you that.

    The fact that MyCoree intentionally mistranslated Professor Kim's sentence shows that MyCoree knows that this sentence hurts the Korean claim.

    Professor Kim translation in English is as follows:

    울릉도 동쪽에 섬이 보이는데 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다.

    울릉도 동쪽에 (To the east of Ulleungdo)

    섬이 보이는데 (an island is visible)

    왜경에 접해 있다 (that connects to the Japanese border.)

    ReplyDelete
  31. I need someone's help.

    What is the difference between "接于倭境" (as used in this sentence) and "接倭境"? What is the function of "于" in this case? Would it make a difference without "于"?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Cloud,

    于 acts as the preposition "to," so the sentence means the following:

    Connects (接) to (于) the Japanese border (倭境).

    ReplyDelete
  33. Pacifist,

    We have discussed this a great deal previously, and you did not understand it then, either, so I think it would be a waste of time for both of us to keep discussing it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. mycoree,

    you wrote, "1.島嶼 Jukdo is entirely needless in order to mention about the protection from Japanese invasion, because it is extremely close to Ulleungdo."

    I thought the other way around. Protection from Japanese invasion matters because it is extremely close to Ulleungdo.
    -----

    Gerry, thanks for the definition.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Gerry.
    You said :
    MyCoree's English translation of Mr, Kim sentence is wrong, and he knows it because he is Korean.

    I say :
    I didn’t translate Professor Kim’s sentence, but the original sentence(漢文).

    You said :
    보이다 means "is visible," not "look at one another." Even a beginning student of Korean can tell you that.

    I say :
    相望(not ‘보이다’) means "look at one another."

    You said :
    The fact that MyCoree intentionally mistranslated Professor Kim's sentence shows that MyCoree knows that this sentence hurts the Korean claim.

    I will not comment about that. Needless, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  36. One more.
    接于倭境 is different from 在於倭境.

    See you next time. Sorry BZ

    ReplyDelete
  37. pacifist,

    본문의 내용과 "맑은 날에만 볼 수 있다"는 내용을 혼동한 것이 아닙니다. 번역이 한국에서 주장하는 내용과 다르다는 것을 지적한 것 입니다.

    한국어-일본어 번역기가 잘 만들어졌기 때문에, 거의 대부분의 내용은 잘 번역되는 것 같습니다.

    번역기를 사용하게 될 것을 생각하고, 문장을 간결하고 쉽고 구조적인 내용으로 쓰려고 하고 있습니다.

    번역이 이상하게 될 것 같거나 내용이 잘 전달되지 않은 것 같은 경우에는, 두 문장으로 나누어서 쓰면 도움이 되는 것 같습니다. 참고가 되시기를 바랍니다.



    小嶋日向守,

    이 blog를 통하여 알게 된 점은, 일본도 독도를 오래전부터 알아왔다는 것과 독도에 대한 역사를 가지고 있다는 것입니다.

    당신도 한국이 오래전부터 독도를 이용해왔고, 독도에 대한 역사를 가지고 있으며, 독도를 실제적으로 지배하고 있다는 사실을 알아주셨으면 합니다.

    현재, 한국과 일본에는 오래된 문서들이 존재하고 있으며, 같은 문장을 해석하는 데 있어서 한국과 일본이 심각하게 차이가 있다는 사실을 알아주셨으면 합니다.

    일본이 한국도 이해할 수 있는 주장이나 증거를 제시하지 못하면, 독도는 한국이 계속 소유하게 될 것입니다. 한국에도 역사적인 자료들이 일본보다 많다는 사실을 다시 한번 말씀드립니다. 전에 말씀하셨던 것과 같이 한국과 일본 모두가 이 문제를 잘 해결하기를 바랍니다.

    ReplyDelete
  38. pacifist,

    을릉도에서 2.4km 떨어진 섬에 일본이 침입했을 경우, 한국이 위기감을 느낀다는 것은 상식에도 어긋나고 실제적으로도 이상한 이야기 입니다.

    을릉도 2.4km 까지 일본군이 왔다면, 그것은 명백히 침략입니다. 위기감을 느끼는 것이 아니라, 실제적인 전쟁과 살인행위가 벌어지게 됩니다.

    pacifist, 당신의 주장에는 설득력이 없고, 증거도 없습니다.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Gerry,

    한국어는 배우기에 가장 어려운 언어에 속합니다. 뜻과 표현이 다양하기 때문입니다.

    한국어에는 다른 언어로 번역될 수 없는 다양한 표현들을 가지고 있습니다. 아주 조그마한 차이이지만 한국어에서는 구별할 수 있는 것도 있습니다.

    한국 사람에게 한국어를 가르치려고 하지 마시기 바랍니다.

    p.s 한글은 한문보다 computer 입력이 7배 정도 빠른 과학적인 글자입니다. 하지만, 한국도 한자의 내용을 한글과 같이 많이 사용합니다.

    ReplyDelete
  40. MyCoree,

    Your post said that my English translation of Professor Kim's Korean translation was wrong.

    If you meant that the Yeongnam University History Professor's translation of the Chinese is wrong, fine, but my translation of his translation was not wrong.

    The title of this post is "Professor Claims Korea's National Institute of Korean History Mistranslated 1714 Passage," so this post is talking about how the National Institute of Korean History mistranslated the 1714 passage. You say they did not mistranslate it, but Korean History Professor Kim Ho-dong said they did, and I agree with him.

    The Chinese was as follows:

    鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境

    And it is translated as follows:

    鬱陵之東 (울릉도지동) - To the east of Ulleungdo

    島嶼相望 (도서상망) - an island (islands) is (are) visible

    接于倭境 (접우왜경) - that connects to the Japanese border.

    The phrase "相望" means "see each other," so the sentence was literally saying, "Ulleungdo and an island east of Ulleundo can see other." That means they were visible to each other, which means that the island was visible from Ulleungdo.

    You and Korea's National Institute of Korean History are trying to pervert the sentence by saying that islands east of Ulleungdo could see each other all the way to the Japanese border. However, that does not make any sense since there is only one island (Liancourt Rocks) between Ulleungdo and Japan's Oki Island, not a string of islands, and Liancourt Rocks and Oki Island cannot "see each other."

    The fact that you and Korea's National Institute of Korean History mistranslate this sentence suggests that you are trying to hide something. And what you are trying to hide is the fact that Korean fishermen in 1714 believed that Liancourt Rocks were Japanese territory.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境

    欝陵之東(East of Ulleungdo)
    島嶼相望(Island(s) view each other)
    接于倭境(contacts with 倭境)

    If East of Ulleungdo was the subject of the sentence, it goes like "The east area of Ulleungdo view island(s) each other and it contacts with 倭境".

    If 島嶼 was the subject of the sentence, it goes like "Island(s) at east of Ulleungdo view each other and they contact with 倭境".

    Anyway, 島嶼 here is not Liancourt Rocks because Liancourt Rocks don't view each other with Ulleungdo (the rocks are one day voyage apart from Ulleungdo).

    Korean people may have a wishful thinking that the sentence means "the two rock islets of Liancourt Rocks view each other" but such an interpretation is illogical jump because Korean people in those days didn't know that Liancourt Rocks consisted of two rock islets. There were no records, no maps.

    So, the island(s) at east of Ulleungdo is/are definitely Jukdo (and 観音島?). And cloud already pointed out, as the island(s) was very near to Ulleungdo, the author felt it as impending crisis.
    If it was not a crisis, the author didn't need to write such a document.

    ReplyDelete
  42. gerry,

    鬱陵之東 (울릉도지동)

    島嶼相望 (도서상망)

    接于倭境 (접우왜경)

    -----

    Lord의 번역,

    울릉도의 동쪽에 섬이 있다.

    독도(울릉도의 동쪽에 있는 섬)는 을릉도와 서로 보인다.

    독도는 일본의 경계와 접촉해 있다(을릉도가 일본의 경계와 접해있다고 이야기할 이유가 없습니다).

    -----

    "잇달아"를 번역에 집어 넣은 문제는, 원본 한문에 없는 글자를 의역하여 집어 넣은 것입니다.

    "잇달아"는 시간적인 연속성을 나타내기도 하고, 공간적인 연속성을 나타내기도 합니다. 방향성이 같다는 의미도 확장할 수 있습니다.

    "을릉도아 독도가 잇달아 왜경과 접해있다"는 문장은 원본에는 없지만, 내용적으로는 틀리지 않았습니다. 하지만, 원본에 없는 단어를 사용한 것은 문제로 보입니다.

    하지만, 나의 원본 해석으로도 충분합니다. 의역에 대해서 100% 틀렸다고 하지 마시기 바랍니다.

    p.s 을릉도의 동쪽에 있는 섬이 독도가 아니라는 주장은 정당하지 못합니다.

    2.4km 떨어진 섬을 별도로 언급할 이유가 없습니다.

    또한 옛날 사람들에게 동서남북의 방향에 대하여 정확하게 기술하는 것은 드문일입니다.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Pacifist,

    In 1694, an Ulleungdo inspector said that he could see an island about 300 ri southeast of Ulleungdo. The only island that could have been is Liancourt Rocks. Also, there are pictures of Liancourt Rocks taken from Ulleungdo. Liancourt Rocks may be visible only a few days out of the year, but they are still visible. Therefore, I do not understand why you would make such a claim.

    I can only assume that you are intentionally ignoring the facts to try to prove your theory, which does not give me a good impression of you.

    ReplyDelete
  44. gerry,

    을릉도에서 아주 맑은 날(연중 50일)에는 92km 거리의 독도를 육안으로도 관찰할 수 있다고 합니다.

    "A few days"라는 말과 "50일"은 안어울리는군요.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Gerry,

    I know that there is one record that a Koean saw Liancourt Rocks from Ulleungdo but he wrote that it was 300-ri apart. It seems that he had not been to the island. It was very far. How the island far away (300-ri apart) view each other with Ulleungdo? To see each other face to face, the islands need to be near.

    And the writer didn't know that the island 300-ri away consisted of two islets. So it is hard to believe that the author of the text thought that the two islets of Liancourt Rocks view each other.

    Logically, the island east of Ulleungdo can't be Liancourt Rocks.

    And please think about the theme of the document. It appealed the importance of defence, showing impending crisis of foreign powers. If the island was Liancourt Rocks as you say, why did the author write an island which was only mentioned once in old document? I don't think the author himself went to Ulleungdo and saw the island, it seems to me that the author wrote the document in Korean peninsula and appealed about protection of Korean peninsula. If so, he may have been heard about the island east of Ulleungdo - and it must be Jukdo.

    Gerry, in reverse, why do you think the island east of Ulleungdo must be Liancourt Rocks?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Lord,

    Koreans are lucky to see Ulleungdo even one of two days a year, which is why a picture of Liancourt Rocks from Ulleungdo is big news in Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Pacifist,

    The reason is that Ulleungdo's Jukdo did not "touch" or "connect" to the Japanese border or "area," as you claim.

    Whether you realize it or not, I think your claim would be laughed at and dismissed by most Westerners. By making such an irrational claim, you are damaging your reputation, which means your rational arguments may be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Gerry,

    If the island east of Ulleungdo was Liancourt Rocks (although I don't think so), the island belongs to Korea as lord insisted.

    Do you think so?
    I don't think that you are thinking the same way as lord.

    Gerry, you wrote;
    "I can only assume that you are intentionally ignoring the facts to try to prove your theory, which does not give me a good impression of you".

    If you think so, I feel sorry. But I don't have any intension to ignor facts.

    I think logically and thought that east of Ulleungdo in those days mean today's Jukdo. Liancourt Rocks were not famous, it was only written down as an island 300-ri away once in the history.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Pacifist,

    By the way, you are right. There is no evidence that Koreans ever went to Liancourt Rocks before the Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s, but there are two pieces of evidence showing that Koreans could see the rocks from Ulleungdo. One is this 1714 passage and the other is the 1694 passage.

    In 1694, the Ulleungdo inspector said he could see an island and guessed it to be about one third the size of Ulleungdo, which tells us he did not go to the rocks since Ulleungdo is about 390 times bigger than Liancourt Rocks. However, apparently the island was visible from Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Gerry,

    을릉도에서 독도를 찍은 사진이 한국에서 큰 뉴스가 된 것은, 이전에는 아무도 그렇게 증거를 남기려고 한 사람이 없었기 때문입니다.

    일본이 을릉도에서 독도가 안보인다는 주장을 했었는데, 그것을 정면으로 반박하는 사진을 보여줬기 때문입니다.

    울릉도에서 1년에 50일 정도 보이는 독도를 사진으로 촬영하려면, 사람이 며칠에서 몇주 동안 을릉도에 머물러야 합니다. 또한, 국제적으로도 인정받을 수 있는 사진을 찍어야 합니다.

    그것을 한국인이 해냈기 때문에 뉴스가 된 것입니다.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Pacifist,

    I have already stated that I think the Korean fishermen in 1714 believed the island visible to the east of Ulleungdo was Japanese territory. I will not repeat my arguments, so please read again what I have already written if you are still unsure of my position.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Gerry,

    So the problem is the interpretation of 倭境.

    As I repeatedly wrote, it doesn't only mean the borderline.

    Please use Chinese dictionary or consult with specialist of Chinese language about the meaning of 境, especially in the case of 境 used after another Chinese word.

    If it meant borderline, it has inconsistency that borderline lied just next to Jukdo or Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  53. This is from an internet disctionary of Chinese character:

    境:As per 竟 (Type 1 Phonetic) (end point) + 土 earth → boundary (← land's end) → border; area; circumstance.

    http://www.kanjinetworks.com/knetwork/KANG.html

    Another Chinese dictionary also mentions that 境 has meanings of: 1] boundary; frontier; border
    [2] place; area; region
    [3] state; situation; circumstances

    http://app.chinesesavvy.com/services/dictionary/DictionaryShowCharacterPO.ot?ch=%E5%A2%83&searchtype=simp&where=anywhere&diccatalog=0&_event=BySpecial

    ReplyDelete
  54. Lord,

    You are making false claims. Skies around Ulleungdo may be clear fifty days a year, but Liancourt Rocks is not visible from Ulleungdo fifty days a year. Only special atmospheric conditions make it possible to view the rocks from Ulleungdo, just as special atmospheric conditions are needed to make Ulleungdo visible from the Korean mainland.

    In regard to Ulleungdo being visible from the Korean mainland, old Korean documents described the atmospheric conditions as being "clear, windy days." Why would wind be necessary? I think wind was just a symptom of other atmospheric phenomena.

    As for Dokdo being visible from Uleungdo, Koreans even admit that the best chance of seeing Dokdo from Ulleungdo would be in the fall. In fact, it has been suggested that the reason Inspector Jang Han-sang (張漢相) was able to see Liancourt Rocks in 1694 was that he went there in September, which was late in the season since seas were usually too rough to visit the island by then. Inspections were normally done in spring or early summer when the seas are calmer.

    ReplyDelete
  55. gerry,

    당신도 "을릉도에서 맑은 날씨에 독도가 보인다"라는 사실을 인정하고 있습니다.

    이제, 이 사실은 누구나 인정할 수 있는 증거 사진도 있습니다.

    하지만, "을릉도에서 독도가 며칠 동안 보이냐?"의 질문에 있어서는 과학적인 검증이 더 필요해 보입니다.

    앞의 말한 "50일 동안 보인다"는 내용은 문제가 있음을 인정합니다.

    하지만, 당신의 주장대로 "a few days"라는 말에는 동의하지 않습니다.

    ReplyDelete
  56. gerry,

    당신은 "오래전의 한국 사람들이 독도에 대하여 몰랐다"고 주장했었습니다.

    하지만, 이제 당신의 생각을 바꾸는군요.

    "을릉도 사람들도 독도가 보이는 것을 알았다."라고 주장하고 있습니다.

    한자의 해석에 있어서도 당신은 엉뚱한 상상을 하고 있습니다. 일본 사람도 동의하지 않는 해석을 하고 있습니다. 하지만, 당신과 일본사람 모두 모순에 빠졌군요.

    한국의 역사학자나 한문학자도 인정할 수 있는 주장을 해주시기를 바랍니다.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Lord,

    In all of Korean history before 1905, there are only two times that Liancourt Rocks was probably mentioned.

    One of those times was in 1694, when Ulleungdo Inspector Jang Han-sang reported seeing an island southeast of Ulleungdo that looked to be about one third the size of Ulleungdo. Ulleungdo is actually about 390 times bigger than Liancourt Rocks, so we know that Jang did not travel to the island. He did not even have a name for it. And the island was never again mentioned in any inspection report of Ulleungdo, including Lee gyu-won's 1882 inspection report. In fact, Lee Gyu-won said there were no other islands visible, except Ulleungdo's neighboring islands of Jukdo and Dohang (Gwaneumdo).

    The second time Liancourt Rocks may have been mentioned was in 1714, when Koreans in ports in Gangwon Province mentioned that there was an island visible to the east of Ulleungdo that was on the Japanese border. The fact that they said it was "visible" from Ulleungdo suggests that they never went there. And the fact that they said it was on the Japanese border tells us that they believed it to be Japanese.

    The fact that "sight" of Liancourt Rocks was mentioned only two times in all of Korean history before 1905 is the most likely reason that there was never any Korean maps made of the island.

    Mention of "seeing" an unnamed island from Ulleungdo only two times in all of Korean history before 1905 does not mean that Koreans knew about the island. The only thing that Koreans knew about the island in 1714 was that it was Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  58. pacifist.
    Your hint is very creative.

    島嶼相望 :
    the two islets of Liancourt Rocks view each other.

    Anyway, I think 島嶼 means "plural (more than two)".

    ReplyDelete
  59. gerry,

    당신이 소설을 쓰고 있다는 것을 많은 사람이 알고 있습니다.

    "경계"의 해석부터 잘하시기 부탁드립니다.

    ReplyDelete
  60. myCoree,

    Thanks, but the island east of Ulleungdo couldn't be Liancourt Rocks because they didn't know exact shape of Liancourt Rocks in those day.

    Even Han-sang (張漢相) didn't know that the Liancourt Rocks were two rock islets. So the author of the text also didn't know it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. lord,
    당신은, 큰 실수를 범하고 있습니다.
    于山島와 石島에 관해서는, 타케시마와는 다른 섬인 것이 증명되고 있습니다.
    따라서, 한국이, 옛부터 타케시마를 이용해 왔다고 하는 사실은 없습니다.
    또 타케시마에 대한 역사도 가지고 있지 않습니다.

    내가 나타내 보인 항로도와 같이 명백한 사료를 나타내 주세요.

    ReplyDelete
  62. 小嶋日向守,

    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/shinchiri-1905/

    일본이 직접 만든 지도입니다.
    지도에 독도가 어떻게 기술되어있습니까?
    당신도 일본에 대하여 자세히 알게 된다면, 실망할 것입니다.

    ReplyDelete
  63. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Lord,

    내가 요구한 것은 한국의 사료이다.
    한국이 1905년 이전부터 영유 하고 있었다고 하는 것에는 되지 않습니다

    ReplyDelete
  65. Gerry Beversさん

    Mr. Gerry Bevers translated「欝陵之東島嶼相望接于倭境」as “Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is on the Japanese border”. But I think「接于倭境」should not be translated as “that is on the Japanese border”.

    As Mr. Pacifist wrote, the word「接」means "touch", or "very close". But it doesn't mean included in the touching subject. So the island is not on the Japanese border.

    Mr. Gerry Bevers also wrote if Koreans had believed the island visible to the east of Ulleungdo to be Korean, then they would have used "faces Japan" (日本 相對로), not "on the Japanese border" (接于倭境).

    In Japanese literature「相對」and「接」are used in the following:「能登國與越中相對接北海」“Noto Province faces Ecchuu Province and is bordered on the north by sea” (林羅山『本朝地理志略』1643) . Noto Province is not on the sea.

    Most Japanese know well that your translation “that is on the Japanese border” of「接于倭境」is wrong and the island is not in Japanese territory. This is a reason why pro-Japanese persistently insisted that the island visible to the east of Ulleung is Jukdo.

    Please refer to「Yahoo!掲示板→大韓民国→竹島→No.16569」.

    Thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Arare,

    Well, that might explain why Kaneganese and Pacifist have been so unreasonable about this translation, but I think both you and they are wrong in this instance and are worrying about nothing.

    Have you ever considered that maybe Koreans thought differently about borders than the Japanese? Haven't you wondered why Korea's National Institute of Korean History came up with such a silly translation for the 1714 passage?

    Koreans thought of their farthermost island as their border and believed the sea separated Korea's border from the Japanese border. In fact, the 1714 passage talked about the "vast sea" separating the two countries. See the following:

    朝家雖以嶺海之限隔 謂無可憂
    The government, however, says that the vast sea is a barrier, so there is no need to worry.


    If the island had been Korean, then the sea would have been between it and the Japanese border, so the island could not have "touched the Japanese border" (接于倭境). That means the island had to be Japanese.

    If the island had been Korean, then they would have used an expression similar to the following:

    "東은 海를 隔하야 日本山陰, 北陸地方과 相對하니"

    The east is the sea between Japan's San-in's "northern area" (北陸地方).


    The above expression, by the way, was the description of the eastern border of Gangwon Province in the 1907 Korean geography book, "新編 大韓地理."

    ReplyDelete
  67. gerry,

    당신은 당신의 주장이 정확하다고 생각하고 있습니다.

    지도를 고려해 보면, 독도는 서쪽과 북쪽을 제외하고 대부분 일본해와 접해있습니다.

    한국인에게 심리적으로 볼때, 독도는 일본의 많은 지역에서 침략할 수 있는 곳이기 때문에, 불안한 곳입니다.

    당신의 주장이 한국인에게도 받아들여지려면, 우선 한국인의 입장에서 생각해보시기 바랍니다.

    또한, 일본인에게도 받아들여질 수 있는 번역을 하시고, 한국인에게도 인정받으시기 바랍니다.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Gerry Beversさん

    Thank you for your comment.

    You wrote if the island had been Korean, then the sea would have been between it and the Japanese border, so the island could not have "touched the Japanese border" (接于倭境).

    But I think the Japanese border can be touched on the sea beyond the island.

    “A Korean island touches the Japanese border” is more consistent than “a Japanese island touches the Japanese border”. If the island had been Japanese, then none of Korean and Japanese would have said that the island, which lies in Japanese territory, touches the Japanese border.

    You wrote if the island had been Korean, then they would have used an expression similar to the following:
    "東은 海를 隔하야 日本山陰, 北陸地方과 相對하니"
    The east is the sea between Japan's San-in's "northern area" (北陸地方).

    As I wrote, 「相對」 and 「接」 are used in 「能登國與越中相對接北海」. It means “Noto Province faces Ecchuu Province and is bordered on the north by sea”. But 「能登國接東越中」 also is really and adequately expressive of Noto Province. However, it should not be translated as “Noto Province is on Ecchuu Province”, but “Noto Province touches Ecchuu Province on the east”.

    「接于倭境」 means the island had to be Korean.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Arare,

    You forgot to respond to the fact that the article, itself, said the sea was the barrier to the borders (限隔), not the border, itself. In other words, the sea separated the borders. Therefore, you interpretation is simply wrong.

    朝家雖以嶺海之限隔 謂無可憂

    ReplyDelete
  70. Gerry Beversさん

    Your interpretation “the island is on the Japanese border” of 「接于倭境」 is simply wrong. You wrote the passage 接于倭境 (접우왜경) means "touches" or "connects to" the "Japanese border."

    Certainly, 「接于倭境」 means “the island touches the Japanese border”. It can be interpreted as “the island is bordered by the Japanese border”. So I think the island is neither on the Japanese border nor in Japanese territory, but adjacent to the Japanese border.

    「島根県は(東では)鳥取県に接す」「島根縣接(東)鳥取縣」 is very familiar expression to Japanese. It means “Shimane Prefecture touches Tottori Prefecture (on the east)”. But Japanese would not interpret as “Shimane Prefecture is on (or in) Tottori Prefecture”. Tottori Prefecture is out of Shimane Prefecture.

    I agree with you that an island visible to the far east of Ulleung is Liancourt Rocks, because 「望」 means to “see in the distance”.

    You wrote “the sea was the barrier to the borders (限隔); in other words, the sea separated the borders”. Yes, I think Liancourt Rocks visible from Ulleung is Korean, and beyond this island the "vast sea" separating the two countries begins.

    The 1714 passage 「欝陵之東島嶼相望接于倭境」 gives corroborative evidence that Koreans have recognized Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Arare,

    You contradict yourself.

    First, you admit that 接于倭境 means "touches the Japanese border." Then you agree that 嶺海之限隔 means that the "vast sea separates" the Japanese and Korean borders. However, then you, somehow, conclude that the island was Korean.

    Do you see the contradiction in your logic?

    You said the island was Korean and agreed that the passage said that the vast sea separated the Korean and Japanese borders, so if the vast sea separated the two borders, how could the island touch the Japanese border if it were Korean?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Gerry and arae
    My translation :
    詳聞浦人言 平海蔚珍 距鬱陵島最近 船路無少礙 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境.

    포인(浦人)의 말을 상세히 듣건대, '평해平海), 울진(蔚珍)은 울릉도(鬱陵島)와 거리가 가장 가까와서 뱃길에 조금도 장애가 없고, 울릉도 동쪽에 섬이 보이는데 섬들(독도)이 서로 마주 보고 있으며, 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다'
    I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, "The distance from Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) to Ulleungdo is the closest, and there is not even a small obstacle along the sea route. At the east of Ulleungdo, some isles(Liancourt Rocks) look at one another and they are close to the Japanese living area."

    島嶼 = Liancourt Rocks ←← pacifist’s idea. I adopted it.
    相望 = Look at each other (one another)
    接于倭境 = be close to the Japanese living area (Oki islands)

    Thanks.

    One more.
    接 : It doesn't mean 'touch'.
    If so, nothing can be 'touched' among Ulleungdo, Jukdo, Dokdo, Oki.
    In my opinion, it means 'be close' or 'be connected'.

    ReplyDelete
  73. It is about 20-30里 from 中峯 to 倭船倉 and is about 5里 from 倭船倉 to 于山島竹嶼(Boussole Rock)
    So,It is about 25里 from 中峯 to 于山島竹嶼(Boussole Rock)

    There are the anotehr usage example of as follows;
    Quote from post here;

    成宗 72卷, 7年10月27日 丁酉
    二十五日西距島七八里許, 到泊見, 則於島北有三石列立.

    成宗 19卷, 3年6月12日 丁丑
    向東南, 見武陵島, 可十五里, 復遇大風, 船纜絶, 漂流大洋中, 不知東西者七晝夜.

    成宗 68卷, 7年6月22日 癸巳
    又於乙未五月, 漢京等六人向此島, 距七八里許, 見阻風, 竟不得達.
    ------------------------------------------------------
    「望」 means to “see in the distance.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Gerry,

    The word "接" means "touch".
    A 接B or AB接 means that A is located next to B, not A is included in B.

    韓在帶方之南 東西以海爲限 南與倭接 方可四千里 (魏志 韓伝)

    This is from an inductory note of a chapter concerning Korea of 魏志, a Chinese book of histroy.

    It mentioned that Korea (韓) is located at south of 帯方 and that its limits of east and south are sea. It also said that Korea touched Japan at south. There are some theories about interpretations of this sentence and one of them is that Japan had controlled south part of Korean peninsula and it was called 狗邪韓国 - the area around Busan. (The name of 狗邪韓国 was also written in 魏志倭人伝, a part concerning Japanese people of the book 魏志.) Of course, Korean scholars have different opinions but anyway, the reason of the theory is that 南與倭接(南South 與with 倭Japan 接 touch) means "the South part of Korea touches Japan" or "(Korea) touches Japan at south" - not bordered by sea like east and south. It literally "touch" ed at south.

    Anyway, Korea is not included in Japan as you know, even if there were a land controlled by Japan.

    The same goes for the sentence 接于倭境. The island touches 倭境 but the island was not included in 倭境. (I won't mention the meaning of 倭境 here.) So the sentence means the island was Korean, not Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  75. GTOMR.

    相望之地
    互(たが)いに 相望(あいのぞ)まれる 近(ちか)い 所(ところ), または その 距離(きょり)
    서로 바라볼 수 있는 가까운 곳, 또는 그 거리
    a close place where one can look at the other(others), or such a distance.

    What I mean : 望 just means 'look at', whether far or not.

    And, I said : 接 doesn't mean 'touch'. I am saying that 接 means '가깝다'in Korean, 'near' in English, similar to 近 in Chinese.

    ReplyDelete
  76. GTOMR,

    望 means : 1] look at; view; watch; gaze into the distance
    [2] hope; expect
    [3] the 15th day of each month
    [4] reputation; prestige
    [5] call on; visit

    http://app.chinesesavvy.com/services/dictionary/DictionaryShowCharacterPO.ot?ch=%E6%9C%9B&searchtype=simp&where=anywhere&diccatalog=0&_event=BySpecial

    So I think it maybe used not only seeing in the distance but also looking at near places. For example, 望梅止渇 means "seeing plums to prevent from being thirsty".

    ReplyDelete
  77. myCoree,

    Your interpretation is almost right. But the problem is you misunderstood the meaning of 倭境. 倭境 is not Oki islands.

    倭境 is Japanese area including space and sea where Japanese people controlled. It included sea where Japanese ships frequently voyaged to and fro.

    As Korean people knew there was an island east of Ulleungdo - Jukdo and no one knew Liancourt Rocks, the island was highly possibly Jukdo. Beyond Jukdo was sea where Japanese ships were frequently seen.

    ReplyDelete
  78. My coree wrote;
    What I mean : 望 just means 'look at', whether far or not.

    Yes,mycoree, you are right. and my comment was not toward your opinion;d

    ReplyDelete
  79. myCoree,

    接:
    [1] receive; accept; take with the hand
    [2] welcome; meet
    [3] join; connect
    [4] graft
    [5] come close to; make contact with
    [6] succeed to

    http://app.chinesesavvy.com/services/dictionary/DictionaryShowCharacterPO.ot?ch=%E6%8E%A5&searchtype=simp&where=anywhere&diccatalog=0&_event=BySpecial

    接触:contact;to contact;to be in touch with;access

    So 接 means contact, it almost the same meaning to touch. Anyway in this case, the sentence means "the island is very near to 倭境".

    ReplyDelete
  80. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Pacifist.
    Yes. In the dictionary,
    接觸 : contact; to contact; to be in touch with; access

    But,
    The concept about ‘close’ or ‘far’ is a relative one.

    The distance from Dokdo to Oki is much farther than that from Ulleungdo to Jukdo, but it is much closer than that from Korea Peninsula or Ulleungdo to Oki.

    The speaker was talking about the protection of Korean Peninsula from Japan and worrying about the possible invasion from eastern direction through Ulleungdo( and Dokdo). In that case, they need to mention the mainland(平海 or 蔚珍), Ulleungdo(130km away from mainland), Dokdo(87.4km away from Ulleungdo) and Oki(160km away from Dokdo). But, Jukdo(2km away) ‘stuck to’ Ulleungdo? No need to mention it.

    ReplyDelete
  82. myCoree,

    You wrote;
    "The speaker was talking about the protection of Korean Peninsula from Japan and worrying about the possible invasion from eastern direction through Ulleungdo( and Dokdo)."

    Your opinion above is almost right except the last word "(and Dokdo)".

    In those days the word "Dokdo" was not used, they even didn't know the island - only one person managed to write about an island at southeast of Ulleungdo but he didn't know exact location, distance and shape. On the other hand, as the original text mentions, Japanese ships are frequently visited Ulleungdo.

    So the author worried about invasion of foreigners, especially Japanese, from east.

    There were Korean people living in Ulleungdo and possibly on Jukdo - the author who was staying in Korean peninsula may have feared that Korean people in Ulleungdo and Jukdo were in danger, so the island east of Ulleungdo where is close to Japanese area should be no other than Jukdo.

    Liancouirt Rocks were not recognised to Korean people in those days and the rocks were uninhabited island. Nobody didn't pay attention to rocks in those days.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Pacifist’s presupposition(前提) 1 : In those days the word "Dokdo" was not used, they even didn't know the island - only one person managed to write about an island at southeast of Ulleungdo but he didn't know exact location, distance and shape.
    Pacifist’s presupposition(前提) 2 : Liancouirt Rocks were not recognised to Korean people in those days and the rocks were uninhabited island. Nobody didn't pay attention to rocks in those days.

    I say :
    Pacifist, when we talk about “Dokdo”, you should not set up those kinds of presupposition. That’s “what even Gerry has advised to you”.

    pacifist said : There were Korean people living in Ulleungdo and possibly on Jukdo - the author who was staying in Korean peninsula may have feared that Korean people in Ulleungdo and Jukdo were in danger, so the island east of Ulleungdo where is close to Japanese area should be no other than Jukdo.

    I say :
    So, you’re saying 島嶼相望 means ‘觀音島 and 竹嶼 look at each other’. Think about it once more. In the context, is it rational? Isn’t it silly?

    I'll be absent for a long time. Sorry. See you.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Sorry, some correction:

    Japanese ships are frequently visited Ulleungdo.

    Japanese ships frequently visited Ulleungdo.

    Nobody didn't pay attention to rocks in those days.

    Nobody paid attention to rocks in those days.

    ReplyDelete
  85. myCoree

    The original meaning of 島嶼 is large island (島) and small island (嶼).
    It then began to indicate various islands or plural islands but it means one island in some occasions.

    So there are various possibility of meaning of the sentence
    鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 :

    1) At east of Ulleungdo, various islands (including Jukdo, 観音島) view each other.
    (The subject of the sentence is "various islands")

    2) From the east of Ulleungdo an island can be viewed (each other with the east of Ulleungdo).
    (The subject of the sentence is the author or readers.)

    3) The east of Ulleungdo view an island/islands. (The subject of the sentence is "The east of Ulleungdo")

    In any case, island(s) is located at east of Ulleungdo, there is a few possibility that it was Liancourt Rocks which is located at 92km southeast.

    And if the author meant plural islands, there is fewer possibility because the author of the only record of the island southeast of Ulleungdo didn't wrote they were plural islets, he only wrote that an island.

    ReplyDelete
  86. myCoree,

    The "prepositions" you called are not really prepositions because they are "facts".

    Fact 1: There was no name "Dokdo" in those days. The name first appeared in eary 1900's and it was written in a Japanese book. There was no Korean document to use the word "Dokdo" to indicate Liancourt Rocks before 1900.

    Fact 2: There was only one Korean recored to indicate Liancourt Rocks - Ulleungdo Sajeok (蔚陵島事蹟) by Jang Han-sang (張漢相), 1694.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/1694-jang-han-sang-finds-sambongdo.html

    Jang wrote that it was "an island" (一島) and its size is one third of Ulleungdo and the distance is about 300-ri (120km).

    Fact 3: Liancourt Rocks were uninhabitable rock islets.

    myCoree, these are "facts". If you refute these "facts", you should bring evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  87. On ‘Fact 1’:
    No name? Wow! Yes. There are many records that “Usando is the island that Japanese call as Matsushima(于山則倭所謂松島也). Did you prove it is not true? No. It is concrete evidence that the island Japanese call Matsushima is Dokdo. One more. If a nameless Korean island has a Japanese name, is that a Japanese territory? ‘No name’ has nothing important.

    On ‘Fact 2’:
    You said, “There was only one Korean recored to indicate Liancourt Rocks - Ulleungdo Sajeok (蔚陵島事蹟) by Jang Han-sang (張漢相), 1694. ~~~~~~”.
    When we discuss another possible record about Dokdo, if you put this ‘Fact 2’ as a base(presupposition), what can we talk more? Do you understand what I mean or what Gerry mean?

    On ‘Fact 3’ :
    You said, “Liancourt Rocks were uninhabitable rock islets.”
    So, do you think that Japanese in those days paid much attention to the Rocks? No. At that time, both Korean and Japanese paid no attention to it. And, from ancient times, both of them regarded the Rocks as a subordinate island to Ulleungdo because it is the nearest and the other (Oki) is much farther than it is. The matter whose is the main island is the decisive factor regarding the ownership of the sub-island. This will be the ‘real fact’ and the most adequate ‘preposition’ and an ‘Eternal Truth’ for you, pacifist.

    Evidence, evidence...! There are many evidences that Dokdo cannot belong to Japan.

    おやすみなさい

    ReplyDelete
  88. myCoree,

    On Fact1: Concerning the Korean insistency -“Usando is the island that Japanese call as Matsushima(于山則倭所謂松島也)", we have showed you that the description originated from "Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo(東国文献備考・與地考)"(1770) which quoted "Dongguk Yojiji(東国輿地志)" which is called simply as "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won(柳馨遠) and the book "Yojiji" was thought to be long lost in Korea, but Prof. 呉相学 of Cheju University found it in 2006. Surprisingly, he confirmed that there was no such sentence in it just as Japanese researchers had always claimed (Shimojo, 2008). It was a fabrication by Shin Gyong-jun (申景濬), the author of the book.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1656-yojiji-by-ryu-hyung-won-didnt-say.html

    ReplyDelete
  89. myCoree,

    As to Fact2 and Fact3, no one can't refute them.

    As you can see in this blog, Usando was not Liancourt Rocks and Sambongdo was not Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  90. As to non-fact1:
    'Fabricate' is not proper word. There was right reason to do so : Matsushima was considered commonly as Korean territory in both conturies.

    As to Fact2 and Fact3 :
    You said, "no one can't refute them."
    You seem to be "brain-washed". How about washing your brain again by yourself? Then, we can discuss together about something.

    Let's pull down the shutter.BZ day.再見

    ReplyDelete
  91. myCoree,

    Please read the article before you refute:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1656-yojiji-by-ryu-hyung-won-didnt-say.html

    You wrote;
    "Matsushima was considered commonly as Korean territory in both conturies"

    But your insistency above is not correct.

    Matsushima had been considered as Japanese territory in Japan. When Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was given to Korea after the dispute in the late 17th century, the Shogunate didn't give Matsushima (Liancourt rocks) to Korea.

    On the other hand in Korea, Shin Gyong-jun (申景濬) inserted the sentence "一則其所謂松島" in his own books in the 18th century. Many Korean scholars misunderstood that the sentence was originated from 東国興地志 (1656) but it was not. Shin Gyong-jin added the sentence maybe from Ahn Yong-bok's statement but credibility of Ahn's statement had been doubtful, as seen in the following article:

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/09/1696-ahn-yong-boks-second-visit-to_19.html

    So Korean scholars' insistency collapsed.

    You can't say "Matsushima was considered commonly as Korean territory in both conturies". Understand?

    ReplyDelete
  92. myCoree,

    You wrote;
    "You seem to be "brain-washed". How about washing your brain again by yourself?"

    I don't want to use such a word "brain-wash" but it is just the word for Korea. They started strong propaganda after Rhee Syngman robbed the island and they started to educate pupils and students that "Dokdo is Korean" without any grounds (as seen in this blog). Isn't this "brain-washing"?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Pacifist you say Rhee "robbed the island"

    Please tell us, what is wrong with the current Japan Korea boundary?

    Current-Boundary

    It looks fair to me. It's also the same as the boundary proposed on other drafts of the Japan Peace Treaty.

    I think you must be an errand boy for Japan's greedy MOFA.

    Japan's-Greedy-Mofa

    ReplyDelete
  94. BTW. Pacifist.

    Japan did not consider Takeshima or Matsushima as part of Japanese territory until their greedy government annexed the islet during the Russo~Japanese War.

    Dokdo-Not-Japanese

    Dokdo-Korean

    Japan-Military-And-Dokdo

    ReplyDelete
  95. Do NOT repeat the old propaganda.
    Do NOT let us see the silly propaganda website.

    This is the place to talk seriously about the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  96. GTOMRさん

    I also show another example of usage 「望」.

    張漢相『蔚陵島事蹟』(1694) describes “Liancourt Rocks” and “Jukdo” as follows:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/1694-jang-han-sang-finds-sambongdo.html

    「入山登中峯・・東望海中有一島杳在辰方而其大滿蔚島三分之一不過三百餘里」 ”We went into the mountains and climbed the central peak. - - Looking toward the east, there was one island far off to the southeast (note by arare: 「辰方」 is not southeast but east-southeast). The size was only about one-third of Ulleungdo. It was only about 300 ri [120 kilometers] away.”

    「東方五里許有一小島不甚高大海長竹叢生於一面」 ”About five ri to the east is one small island. It is not very big or very high, and it has a grove of haejang bamboo (海長竹) growing thickly on one side.”

    For “Liancourt Rocks” 「望」 is used in its description as 「東望海中」 “Looking toward the east”, whereas for “Jukdo” there is no character 「望」.

    I think, therefore, 「鬱陵之東島嶼相望」 “an island visible to the east of Ulleung” in the 1714 passage represents “Liancourt Rocks” rather than “Jukdo”.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  97. arareさん,

    It is too overhasty to conclude so only after seeing these sentences.

    As I have shown before, Chinese charcter 望 means:
    [1] look at; view; watch; gaze into the distance
    [2] hope; expect
    [3] the 15th day of each month
    [4] reputation; prestige
    [5] call on; visit

    As a sentence 望梅止渇 indicates, looking at plum trees in the garden can be expressed as 望. Why not to see an island 2.2 km away?

    ReplyDelete
  98. 「東方五里許有一小島不甚高大海長竹叢生於一面」 ”About five ri to the east is one small island. It is not very big or very high, and it has a grove of haejang bamboo (海長竹) growing thickly on one side.”

    As Mycoree and the post which I mentioned said, it is no matter the distances.

    Yes, and Korean inspector marked this isalnd as ”于山島”after 1711 with female bamboo we know.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Pacifistさん

    Thank you for your comment.

    As you have shown, Chinese character 「望」 means also “gaze into distance”.

    I think 「鬱陵之東島嶼相望」 “an island visible to the far east of Ulleung” is “Liancourt Rocks” rather than “Jukdo”, because 張漢相『蔚陵島事蹟』 describes “Liancourt Rocks” as 「東望海中有一島杳在辰方」 “Looking toward the east, there was one island far off to the east-southeast”.

    ReplyDelete
  100. arareさん、

    You wrote;

    "I think 「鬱陵之東島嶼相望」 “an island visible to the far east of Ulleung” is “Liancourt Rocks” rather than “Jukdo”"

    And your points are:
    1)張漢相『蔚陵島事蹟』 described Liancourt Rocks
    2)望 has a meaning of "gaze into distance"

    I agree that 張 described Liancourt Rocks, but this was the only description of the rocks in the history of Korea. Almost all of the Koreans didn't know that there was an island at southeast.

    The Chinese character 望 has also meanings of "look at" and it is not rare to use it to express seeing near places. So I think there are not sufficient grounds to believe that the island in the text is Liancourt Rocks.

    Returning to the original text 鬱陵之東島嶼相望, please think of yourself standing at the east of Ulleungdo. Also please refer to the maps of Ulleungdo at the right side of this website (which Gerry has posted) - what do you see at east?

    It is Jukdo you can see (望) as soon as you look at east. Liancourt Rocks can be viewed on only clear and fine days but not always.

    And many Korean people knew that there was an island at east of Ulleungdo as the maps show, and the original text was to lay emphasis on protecting Korea from others. (I think the author was writing the text staying in the Korean peninsula.) Simply it is highly possibly Jukdo, which was Usando in the maps.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Pacifistさん

    You wrote “望 has also meanings of "look at" and it is not rare to use it to express seeing near places”, although I said “Chinese character 「望」 means also to gaze into the distance”.

    As an example you cited 望梅止渇 "seeing plums to prevent from being thirsty". But in this sentence 「望」 does not seem to express “looking at plum trees in the garden” as you wrote. I think 「望」 means “[2] hope; expect” rather than “[1] look at” in your “Chinese-English dictionary”.

    I agree, however, 「望」 is used rarely to express seeing near places. I show here one example.

    「南望鶴城砲煙颺」(佐原盛純「白虎隊」) “Looking at Kaku- or Tsuruga-jo Castle to the south, we saw war flames shot up” uses 「望」 to express seeing around Tsuruga-jo Castle, 2 to 3 km away from Mt. Iimori-yama.

    Jukdo is 2.2 km off the east coast of Ulleungdo, and it is Jukdo we can see (望) as soon as we look at east, as you wrote. Nevertheless, 張漢相『蔚陵島事蹟』(1694) wrote simply 「東方五里許有一小島」 “About five ri to the east is one small island”. He did not use 「望」to express seeing “Jukdo”.

    In contrast with “Jukdo”, 張漢相 described “Liancourt Rocks” as 「東望海中有一島杳在辰方」 “Looking toward the east, there was one island far off to the east-southeast” (translated by Gerry Bevers). He used 「望」 to express seeing “Liancourt Rocks”.

    Returning to the original text “the 1714 passage”, I interpret 「欝陵之東島嶼相望」 as “we can see an island far off to the east of Ulleung”.

    I am sure, therefore, that the island visible gazing into the distance to the east of Ulleung is “Liancourt Rocks”.

    Thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
  102. arare,

    成宗実録72巻 成宗7年10月丁酉
    "二五日 西距島七八里許到泊 望見"

    "望" is used even by the distance of about 7-8ri(2.8km-3.2km). Therefore, the island cannot be specified from the character of "望".

    ReplyDelete
  103. 二五日 西距島七八里許到泊 望見 則 於島北 有三石列立 次小島 次巌石列立 次中島 中島之西又有小島 皆海水通流
    亦海島之間 有如人形 別立者三〇 因疑惧 不得直到 畫島形而來

    This shows that the rocks, strange stones(三石) and Jukdo(中島)can see(望見)from the east of Ulleungdo. It is not unusual such use of 望 at a near places.

    ReplyDelete
  104. arare様

    As opp already pointed out, it is groundless to decide "望" can't be used when you look at an island 2-3km off shore of Ulleungdo only depending on how 張 described in one certain book.

    河神因为涨了河水而自以为很大、很了不起。后来到海边,看见海洋无边无际、十分浩大,才仰望着海神,叹息自己很渺小。后用“望洋兴叹”比喻办事因条件不够,而感到无可奈何。

    望洋兴叹 in the above text means "seeing the ocean from a seashore" and lament own littleness. You can view (望)sea from a beach, not always gazing into the 92km distance.

    The main meaning of 望 is "look at", "view", and "watch".

    And please remember that when you stand at the east of Ulleungdo you will "view" Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks. Liancourt Rocks can't be viewed on the every day basis - and it was only described once in the Korean history and it was no name.

    And also please remember that the author was writing this document staying at somewhere in the Korean peninsula, not Ulleungdo. So his knowledge about islands around Ulleungdo may had been old documents. In these old documents, Usando was most frequently mentioned and Usando in these documents has been proved to be today's Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Pacifist様

    Thank you very much for your interesting comment.

    But you seem to misunderstand meaning of 「望洋兴叹」. You interpreted 「望洋兴叹」 as follows: 望洋兴叹 in the above text means "seeing the ocean from a seashore" and lament own littleness. You can view(望)sea from a beach, not always gazing into the 92km distance.

    「望洋兴叹(興嘆)」 means to “lament one's littleness before the vast ocean”, as “the Chinese-English dictionary” wrote. Consequently 「望洋」 means seeing the vast ocean, that is gazing into the distance.

    I present a similar Japanese expression: 「沙汀南望浩煙波」(太宰春臺(1680-1747)「稲叢懐古」 DAZAI Shundai “Reminiscence of Inamura”).I interpret it as “From the sand beach we can see smoke-like waves over the vast ocean far off to the south”, as surfers now hope (望) “Inamura Jane”.

    The main meaning of 「望」 is “gaze into the distance”, as many Japanese dictionaries interpret. 「望」 does not mean “look at” only near places or objects.

    Staying at somewhere in the Korean peninsula, 趙錫命 remembered a sentence of old document 『高麗史』, as well as 「東望海中有一島杳在辰方」 “Looking toward the east, there was one island far off to the east-southeast” 『蔚陵島事蹟』. That sentence was 「于山武陵本二島相距不遠風日淸明則可望見」 “Usan and Muleung are originally two separate islands, and they are not so far to each other that we can see Usan from Muleung gazing into the distance on a windy, clear day”.

    「欝陵之東島嶼相望」 “We can see an island (Liancourt Rocks) far off to the east of Ulleung” in “the 1714 passage” is confirmed again.

    ReplyDelete
  106. arare様

    Thank you for your comment. But to view an object 2-3km away is possible to say "望".

    If you view the ocean your eyes look at objects 1km away, 5km away, 10km away, 20km away....but not always so far as 92km away.

    And you didn't comment on one more important thing - the author seems to have written the text satying in Korean peninsula - he should have written the sentence using references such as old documents and maps.

    There were numerous maps and docs relating Usando (Jukdo) as you can see at the right side bar of this blog while Liancourt Rocks were only mentioned once and it had no name. Why the author could mention Liancourt Rocks? I would like to hear how the author could know about Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete