tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32776756.post9022015499325824270..comments2023-10-20T18:03:01.821+09:00Comments on GlobalTalk 21: From Prime Minister Abe’s Take on “Aggression,” to Reading EntrailsJun Okumurahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00291478225274759649noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32776756.post-9826156381890857582013-05-08T11:58:12.290+09:002013-05-08T11:58:12.290+09:00Joe: you need a better dictionary. Yes, that's...Joe: you need a better dictionary. Yes, that's one valid definition. However, another definition (often listed before the one you listed) is 『ある国が武力を行使して他国の主権を侵すこと。』<br /><br />There are many, many examples in modern Japanese of the word 侵略 being used without any 領土や財物を奪い取る occurring (or as you put it "foreign soldiers showing up at the doorstep".)<br /><br />The fact that we can find multiple definitions, both in J-J and J-E dictionaries, ironically sort of prove his point.井上エイドhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15700479276928374081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32776756.post-36365741132888976682013-05-02T23:14:12.767+09:002013-05-02T23:14:12.767+09:00Well, Abe is being really facetious (it's not ...Well, Abe is being really facetious (it's not his fault; he's a politician) about his actual words: there doesn't need to be an academic or international 'definition,' because the meaning of the word is pretty cut and dried. Just to confirm (can't rely too much on the memory these days), I pulled out my little electronic dictionary, and and the definition of 「侵略」is 「他国に侵入してその領土や財物を奪い取ること」. <br /><br />I'm pretty sure that it's up to the people with foreign soldiers showing up at the doorstep who get to decide whether it's a "liberation" or an "invasion." Although I'm sure the prime minister and Dick Cheney would disagree with me on that.Joenoreply@blogger.com