Re: Cants

Quoting Costentin Cornomorus <elemtilas@...>:

> --- Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:
>
> > That might be a be all well and good for a
> > definition "empire" in the
> > imperialistic sense, but use of the title
> > "emperor" does not necessarily imply
> > a such. Tokugawa Japan, for instance, can
> > hardly be described as
> > imperialistic; yet westerners have been
> > perfectly happpy to render _tenno_
> > as "emperor" (and for that matter, in older
> > material, also _shogun_).
>
> And besides, they still háve an emperor!
True. I was first considering mentioning post-Restoration Japan, but chose not
to on account of the imperialistic policies pursued in the period from the
Sino-Japanese War to WWII. But post-WWII Japan has of course not been
imperialistic in any sensible meaning of the word. (That's right, I consider
the concept of "economic imperialism" to be non-sensibly termed.)

To get somewhat back to the subject of linguistic invasion, that's to say,
almost on topic, it could be interesting to make a study exactly of what has
caused westerners to translate non-western royal titles as "emperor" in some
cases, but "king" in most. There's an obvious tendency for the former title to
be restricted to monarchs of greater or more powerful states than those ruled
by mere kings - Chinese emperors rather towering above the ubiquitous African
kings - but that would not seem to be enough to explain how the Thai ended up
with a king but Vietnamese with an emperor.

                                                           Andreas