|
|
|
|
|
 別又來挑撥！民主在臺灣是喊假的嗎？ |
|
2011/07/22 12:45 |
|
請蔡有點格調，這根本是個假議題，別又來挑撥了！自己腦殘還要帶著大伙一塊腦殘，臺灣的民主只是用來喊的嗎？有點長進行不行？素質太令人失望了！
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Toward 100% precision |
|
2011/07/22 08:54 |
"Chinese" as a word is of course not a political term. Use of it with proper context is of course a good thing.
Translating "Chinese" into 中國人 when in fact the former really means 華人 under its context may bear a political motivation that can be told only after close scrutiny.
Likewise, translating 華人 into Chinese without qualifying the latter may also bear a political motivation that again can be told only after close examination.
Precisely because some people methodically take advantage of this grey area to advance their agenda, that we must all be extra careful so as to not to be had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Precision is nothing if not 100% |
|
2011/07/22 08:30 |
I beg to differ, TaiwanIsAProvince.
Here's a typical definition of "Chinese" in a typical dictionary:
Chinese | ch īˈnēz; -ˈnēs|
adjective
of or relating to China or its language, culture, or people.
‧ belonging to or relating to the people forming the dominant ethnic group of China and widely dispersed elsewhere. Also called Han .
noun ( pl. same)
1 the Chinese language.
2 a native or national of China, or a person of Chinese descent.
Therefore, it is clear that the simple word of "Chinese" can be:
1. 形容詞，which is not what we are discussing here.
2. 名詞，noun 1 as above means 華語，again not what we are talking about.
3. 名詞，and there are two totally different use cases:
3.1 a native or national of China = 中國國（公）民。
3.2 a person of Chinese descent = 華人，包括漢人與其他少數族裔。
所以，華人包括所有中國公民(後者確係“中國人” — 中國的人），中國人或中國公民不包括所有華人。因此使用 Chinese 一字意義必須精確，也不可一概譯成“中國人”。
使用“中國人”一詞也必須精確，不可將華人一概打成“中國人”。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Taiwanese, Cantonese, Shanghainese,... |
|
2011/07/21 10:08 |
are all Chinese, they just have different local dialects.
"Chinese" really is not a political term. It generally means a person of Chinese heritage. Of course, 台獨 has made it a political term. Its hatred towards mainlanders is beyond comprehension.
During American Civil War, did either side redefine "American"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| golfnut |
|
2011/07/21 09:04 |
|
yes, your last paragraph said it all. this issue is more complicated than usual...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Reasoning reason |
|
2011/07/21 04:10 |
If "ownership" is what you are saying, then let me just say that yes, ROC did "own" mainland China before, only that it lost it to the communists later. PROC on the other hand, has never actually "owned" Taiwan before, period.
The state of "owning" of mainland China may no longer be true, but since when is "ownership" also gone?
It's like you have a large property which has one main building and one subsidiary building. Since you have the property you own both of them. Later a bandit kicked you out of the main building but can't rid you out of the smaller one (and thus the property) completely. The reality is, you no longer "own" the larger building although you still clearly own the smaller one, but what about your "ownership" of the main building? Regardless of the situation, should you claim to no longer the rightful owner of it, therefore throw your ownership out of the window?
Bottom line is, if you lose your wallet to a thief, yes, you non longer "own" it, but what do you say about your ownership?
Truthfulness is based on reality, rightfulness is based on reason. The state of owning and the right of ownership are clearly different. I don't see any illusion here. Even PROC doesn't claim to presently own Taiwan, only that they "are the rightful owner" of it, which is entirely bullshit. But of course there's this factor of power and force, which are as you must also know not always on the same side of reason and just.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Since the ball is on my court |
|
2011/07/21 03:47 |
《中華民國憲法》是中華民國的根本法，1946年12月25日經制憲國民大會於南京議決通過，於1947年1月1日由國民政府公布，同年12月25日施行。由於國共內戰的爆發，導致中華民國在1949年後的治權僅及於台灣、澎湖、金門、馬祖等地[1]，故國民大會於1991年在憲法本文之外增訂《中華民國憲法增修條文》以因應當前國情。
I have yet to find the actual clauses of 《中華民國憲法增修條文》but I am sure we no longer claim to rule those areas you claimed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| well, last time i check... |
|
2011/07/21 03:19 |
|
the greens still claim they own all the reds have plus the mongolian's place, still in their constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Let's see what's true and what isn't |
|
2011/07/21 03:00 |
|
Wrong, hu-mo, the green passport carriers no longer claim to own the other one, only the other way round is happening.
And this is not about difficulty, as you must also know -- we all know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| there are 2 kinds of chinese |
|
2011/07/21 02:49 |
|
one carry a green passport, the other carry a red one. they all claim to own the other, in reality they don't. what's the problem with these people? must be living in a dream land... to make life easier for everyone in this world... just call the reds chinese and the greens taiwanese, is it that hard? because that's what they call each other on the daily basis for crying out loud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
字體：小 中 大
