From: seo@capone.ccsm.uiuc.edu (Jong-Wook Seo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Sea of East, Korea, Japan.
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:46:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxBrq5.CD5
Organization: Microelectronics Lab - Univ. of Illinios


 In article <1992Nov6.174242.17046@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, 
kim_sh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Sung Hyun Kim) writes :


>In article <XAVIER.92Nov6154146@kuee.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp> 
xavier@kuee.kyoto->u.ac.jp writes:
>>
>>In article <Bx7v42.711@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
>>seo@capone.ccsm.uiuc.edu (Jong-Wook Seo) writes:
>>
>> |A map has been found lately showing what the truth is.
>> |That is a map which was published by professor Antonio Jata in 1777 
under 
>> |the sponsorship of the Venetian Senate in Italy.
>> | ......
>>
>>I've investigated about it since I read your article. I mainly refered
>>to `Great Soviet Encyclopedia, a translation of the 3rd edition,
>>Macmilant Inc., New York.' The library of our university has it. Maybe
>>your university has too.
>>
>>----
>>Yuji "Xavier" Komatsu (xavier@kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp)

Dear Yuji Komatsu:
I think I haven't gotten your articl quoted above somehow.
Could you please post it again, or just e-mail it to me?
(My e-mail address is  seo@capone.ccsm.uiuc.edu.)
It will be appreciated.


>So.. you guys are trying to find some "authority" to decide the name for 
>the sea from either Italy or Russia. 
If you really think that it's what I'm trying to do, I would be 
disappointed.

>What's the point?
My point is at the last paragraph of my posting :
       "The last thing I want to say is that we have to correct it not 
        only because it is not right, but also we have to stop the mania, 
        putting whatever name they want.
        We have tried to correct it because we think it is not what the 
        right way to put a name on something is supposed to be".
No less than that, not more than that.


>I don't think "the Sea of East" used commonly by Koreans is acceptable for
>international use because "east" is too ambiguous and relative term and 
>especially for Japanese people, it doesn't make any sense..
I am talking about the name of a sea.
Not the way how we make it.
Do you really think you name is self-clear?
(Damn! This question sounds stupid.
But, it carries the meaning.)

Another thing is why do the names 'Sea of East China("Dong-Ji-Na-Hae")' and 
'Sea of South China("Nam-Ji-Na-Hae")'  make SENSE for Korean people and 
any other people in the world?
Anyway, I have been talking about the real SENSE we need to keep and save.

>But then the matter of Sea of Korea or Sea of Japan is pretty tricky. The
>thing is that two countries are too close  and the sea between them is too
>small to be divided into two names.  I guess we Koreans get some 
>impression that since Japanese intrusion era, the name Sea of Japan has been
>used by the other people in the world, and as I understand that's the
>motivation for this thread.
No, it is NOT the motivation for my thread.
Not at all, at least for me.

>IMHO, it would be best if we can use such names as "Sea of Japan-Korea" or
>"Sea of Korea-Japan" (but then Japanese will prefer the former, and 
>Koreans the latter..etc.). Well, then what about N.Korea? :-)
It is not a matter of negotiation or compromise, but a matter of principle.

>Anyway, name exists for others to use. If people in the world insists to
>use Sea of Japan, how can we force them not to?  Well...just if we can 
>convince them that calling a sea , some part of which belongs to Korean 
>territory and some part of which belongs to Japanese territory, as Sea of
>Japan Only is nonsense, I would be content with that. :-)
The sea has had the name "Sea of Korea" NOT because it has been Korean 
territory, but because the name had been naturally accepted and widely used.
It is the way how things are called with their names.
The problem is that the name was 'forced' to be changed.
And, we think that kind of idea should be stopped.
(I don't have 'a name should be kept forever' sort of idea.
So, please don't start to talk about that kind thing.
I just want to talk about the idea, which I called 'mania' last time.)

>Just my opinion.
-- 
>Sung Hyun Kim      kim_sh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu ; kim_sh@jhuvms.hcx.jhu.edu

> A self-countering N-tuple is called an equilibrium point
> John Nash, Proceedings of National Academy of Science (1950)



Jong-Wook Seo
Xref: sparky soc.culture.korean:5107 soc.culture.japan:10175