# として,韓国が今日、軍の射撃訓練を行うとして



## kaven-ever

韓国が今日、軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた問題で、韓国軍は予定通り、北朝鮮の潜水艦に対処する訓練を行いました。　From NHK

What does として exactly mean? I think this sentence mean because Korea was going to conduct a drill, so it gave the sailing warning in the related territorial waters which included Japan's.
But the translation for reference says it was Japan who gave the warning, but there's no 日本 in this sentence. Why?

Thanks in advance.

Kaven-ever.


----------



## karlalou

kaven-ever said:


> 韓国が今日、軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた問題で、
> "kaven-ever, post: 15295775, member: 681211"]What does として exactly mean?



This として means と言って or ということで.
mm.. I guess Japan's authority gave the warning to people after receiving the notice from Korea.


----------



## spu001

Let's split the sentence into three sections:

韓国が今日、軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、
島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた問題で、
韓国軍は予定通り、北朝鮮の潜水艦に対処する訓練を行いました。
1. You're right, in this case, として is 'because.' but 'として' mainly means 'assuming that,' you use it when you say "assuming that the rumor is true who can stop it?"　噂が本当だった*として*、誰がそれを防げる？ in this case it's already happened but the writer still uses 'として,' that's because he/she have to stay objective toward the news, so you can use 'として' when reporting news. in this section, the subject is Korea.
2.  There's a hidden subject: *海上保安庁が*島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた.  even if the writer didn't mention the maritime department Japanese speakers understand that the department issued the warning. if a sentence is understandable without the subject of it Japanese people prefer not to mention. in this section, the subject is the Japanese.
3. The subject is the Korean.

Hope this helps.
Spu


----------



## kaven-ever

Thank you, karlalou, spu001, I'm a little curious how do you know it was Japanese authority who issued the warning, because you've got the knowledge of this situation on TV or papers already, or just from context which lost me again and again.

Thanks again.

Kaven-ever.


----------



## karlalou

Do you think we hear the news from Koreans directly? XD


----------



## Flaminius

The syntax of the text does not exclude the reading that the warning was issued by the Korean authority.  In fact I find it more likely the case than the Japanese authority.  *kaven-ever*, you will have to explain where the sentence is located in the whole text, but I think I am familiar enough with the NHK style to say that it is the opening sentence.  There is no other possibility, then.  If it were somewhere in the middle, "the Japanese authority" could be technically omitted for one reason or another.  I still find it a bad writing habit that proof-readers at NHK would never allow.

The referent of "we" is unclear in *karlalou*'s #5, but Japanese medias report from all over the world, including the neighbouring Korea.  Seafarers, for instance, are attentive of all warnings issued by the authority whose vicinity they are travelling.  A Japanese news media may thought a warning by the Korean authority worth reporting in case Japanese ships got accidentally shelled.


----------



## spu001

> Thank you, karlalou, spu001, I'm a little curious how do you know it was Japanese authority who issued the warning


You're welcome. to find 'held-backed subjects of Japanese sentence (N.B. not omitted),' for the most part, people depend on their own experiences because if you hear or see identical things again and again you've got tacit knowledge.
Also, you can hold back subjects when you speak about yourself, "日本語を勉強しています" is quite natural unless you need to clarify the subject "私は日本語を勉強しています。" after "宏くんはスペイン語を勉強しています。" is introduced. so, you can do this also when you speak about your party(we) and I think that's the reason the writer wanted to hold back the name of the authority which issued the warning since it's 'our.'
And also when you say '読めばわかるものだよ,' it's like 'general you' in English, "you easily understand when you read it."



> The syntax of the text does not exclude the reading that the warning was issued by the Korean authority. In fact I find it more likely the case than the Japanese authority


If I were in charge of reviewing this writing I'd dislike the lack of the subject, too. but you don't read news from grammar fan's point of view and are nowhere near 'syntax,' which we, grammar fans, couldn't care more when we read novels or texts on this site etc.. If we read this article like we hear a chatter from friends, we can easily see the hidden subject.
You'll find the article if you google it. believe or not, I easily found that the Japanese issued that warning before I googled, I think Karlalou, too.
You can criticize this writing for not reaching the levels of national broadcasting company but, as for the lack of the subject, it doesn't deserve to be criticized. it's 'ok.'

Spu


----------



## Flaminius

I googled the article.  It begins as follows.


> 韓国が、20日軍の射撃訓練を行うとして島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた問題で、韓国軍は20日朝からこの付近で予定どおり射撃訓練を始めました。
> 
> この問題は、韓国政府が海軍の射撃訓練を行うとして竹島の南西沖の東西およそ150キロ、南北およそ55キロの海域に航行警報を出し、この海域の一部が日本の領海にかかっているとして日本政府が訓練の中止を求めていたものです。


----------



## kaven-ever

Thanks everyone.


----------



## spu001

On the archived website that you linked, we can go to an article one day earlier than one that you quoted "韓国が竹島沖の領海含む海域で射撃訓練へ （6月19日 16時57分) ."


> 韓国が、射撃訓練を行うと通報してきた海域に、島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海が含まれていることが分かりました。
> *海上保安庁は*、航行警報を出して付近を航行する船に注意を呼びかけています。


"Our" coast guard did.



> 韓国が、20日軍の射撃訓練を行うとして島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた問題で、韓国軍は20日朝からこの付近で予定どおり射撃訓練を始めました。


I'll split the sentence you quoted just like Kaven-ever's one,
1. "韓国が、20日軍の射撃訓練を行うとして"
2. "島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた問題で"
Since 1. is a subordinate clause a subject can be changed in the next clause and possible reasons why the writer "held back" the subject were explained on my last post.

Hope this helps
Spu


----------



## Flaminius

spu001 said:


> On the archived website that you linked, we can go to an article one day earlier than one that you quoted "韓国が竹島沖の領海含む海域で射撃訓練へ （6月19日 16時57分) ."
> 
> 
> 
> 韓国が、射撃訓練を行うと通報してきた海域に、島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海が含まれていることが分かりました。
> *海上保安庁は*、航行警報を出して付近を航行する船に注意を呼びかけています。
> 
> 
> 
> "Our" coast guard did.
Click to expand...

Provide the source for each quote.  Here is the archive for 韓国が竹島沖の領海含む海域で射撃訓練へ (published on 2014-06-19 16:57).

The fact that Japan Coast Guard issued an warning does not cancel that the Korean counterpart issued an warning (제14-240호; No. 240 for the year 2014) in the beginning.  How would Japan otherwise know about the shooting drill?  As Japan is the coordinator of navigation warnings in the sea area called NAVAREA XI, Korea Hydrographic and Oceanographic Administration must have reported their domestic warning to the Japanese counterpart.  I could not find the exact paper, but it is likely that the report was made in a format similar to other reports you can see here.



> I'll split the sentence you quoted just like Kaven-ever's one,
> 1. "韓国が、20日軍の射撃訓練を行うとして"
> 2. "島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた問題で"
> Since 1. is a subordinate clause a subject can be changed in the next clause


It took me a while to realise that the article I found in the Archive is slightly different from Kaven's.  Here it is.  Again, the article begins with:
韓国が今日、軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた問題​There is no doubt that 韓国 is the subject for 出す.

Back to the article I found, the second sentence is also an important clue that begins with この問題は.  Did you read it?

Your sentence fragment 1 is not a subordinate clause, but 20日軍の射撃訓練を行うとして is.  Notice a _tōten_ splits 韓国 from the following.  By separating the subject from the verb, the punctuation underscores that 韓国 is not just the subject of a subordinate clause but that of the matrix clause too.  In fact, there is no other candidate that can be the subject for 出す in this text.


> and possible reasons why the writer "held back" the subject were explained on my last post.


I read your last post but could not find them.  Can you quote or repeat your reasons?


----------



## spu001

To clarify, for a start, I write down unambiguous facts that keep us on the right track:

At the outset, Korea *informed *Japan of the drill schedule (韓国が、射撃訓練を行うと通報してきた海域に)
Japanese coat guard issued 'the' warning, according to the article 韓国が竹島沖の領海含む海域で射撃訓練へ (published on 2014-06-19 16:57).
Whether Korean counter part(KCG) issued another warning from their end or not is debatable, but it's not my cup of tea, let's leave this matter to political/military enthusiasts in somewhere else.


> The fact that Japan Coast Guard issued an warning does not cancel that the Korean counterpart issued an warning (제14-240호; No. 240 for the year 2014) in the beginning


Refer only to websites written in English or Japanese. Though we know all readers here are good speakers of one or both of them, we can't assume that all readers understand Korean, also, discussions that hinge on machine translated sources are too good to be true. KCG might have issued another 'warning' and we can reinvent the wheel to include all possibilities out there, but who knows? I just wanted to make sure who was on the mind of the writer of the OP's quote when he/she was writing the part of the sentence "航行警報を出していた."



> Back to the article I found, the second sentence is also an important clue that begins with この問題は. Did you read it?





> Your sentence fragment 1 is not a subordinate clause, but 20日軍の射撃訓練を行うとして is. Notice a _tōten_ splits 韓国 from the following. By separating the subject from the verb, the punctuation underscores that 韓国 is not just the subject of a subordinate clause but that of the matrix clause too.





> I read your last post but could not find them. Can you quote or repeat your reasons?


Yes, when reading/hearing news (especially breaking news) or chatter from friends the nucleus of their account depends on circumstances and atmospheres around them. And we have to remember this writer is half-decent since he/she prefer not to write the subject, but you must write a subject after you wrote "宏くんはスペイン語を勉強しています。" This is the reason, he/she held back the subject, not that he/she intentionally omitted it. But, as I wrote before, he/she doesn't deserve to be criticized.



> It took me a while to realise that the article I found in the Archive is slightly different from Kaven's. Here it is. Again, the article begins with:
> 韓国が今日、軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた問題
> There is no doubt that 韓国 is the subject for 出す.


I still disagree.



> How would Japan otherwise know about the shooting drill?


Again, in the beginning, Korea *informed *Japan of the drill.

The most important thing is how people understand news when they hear them in particular circumstances and in this case the news was broadcast for people who live in Japan.
I don't expect news reporters to have perfect grammar sense.

Regards
Spu


----------



## Flaminius

spu001 said:


> Whether Korean counter part(KCG) issued another warning from their end or not is debatable, but it's not my cup of tea, let's leave this matter to political/military enthusiasts in somewhere else.


Alas, I am at a loss what you consider as a solid proof.  At first you were so sure about the issuer of the warning.  You said this much before considering the article I found or the second sentence in the article brought up by the OP:



spu001 said:


> 2. There's a hidden subject: *海上保安庁が*島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた. even if the writer didn't mention the maritime department Japanese speakers understand that the department issued the warning.



Then you found that JCG did issue a warning and said that the OP's article should be understood in reference to this fact.  [There, you implicitly shifted your position: I wonder what the original sentence would mean to you if it were not for the article published on 2014-06-19 16:57.]  I think it is too demanding for the usual audience to remember such a small detail they heard a day before.  It is a trivial detail, so small in comparison to the exercise itself.  Now we are stuck because you refused to admit that Korea, too, made a warning.  You may not take my link as evidence, but a Korean warning is more than plausible and has a certain value as news.



> Though we know all readers here are good speakers of one or both of them, we can't assume that all readers understand Korean



It is a firsthand source worthy of sharing.  If someone who speaks Korean stumbles upon this thread, they can confirm independently what I am going to say about it.

No knowledge of Korean is required to understand important details in the link.  First, it is a navigational warning by KHOA.  Second, it says something was going to take place between 2014-06-20 and 06-24 (Common sense and a few online resources can tell that they are the scheduled date and four reserve days). Third, the coordinates match NHK's description of the warning zone.

According to Kevin's Chinese site, NHK said [emphasis mine]:


> 韓国が今日、軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた問題で、韓国軍は予定通り、北朝鮮の潜水艦に対処する訓練を行いました。この問題は、韓国政府が海軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、*竹島の南西沖の東西およそ150キロ、南北およそ55キロの海域*に航行警報を出し、この海域の一部が日本の領海にかかっているとして、日本政府が訓練の中止を求めていたものです。



These are the first two sentences from the news item.  There is no doubt that 韓国政府 is the subject of 航行警報を出し.  As this elaborates on the first or the lead sentence, the assumption on the subject of 航行警報を出していた is retrospectively confirmed; if such a confirmation were really really necessary, that is.



> I just wanted to make sure who was on the mind of the writer of the OP's quote when he/she was writing the part of the sentence "航行警報を出していた."


Reading comprehension should rely on more solid things than "the mind of the writer"; such as the text (the whole text and nothing but the text).



> Yes, when reading/hearing news (especially breaking news) or chatter from friends the nucleus of their account depends on circumstances and atmospheres around them.


You are confounding written and oral communications. The writers of a news item know much more about the subject than an average reader.  A reader can assume all vital details to be found in the article itself.  In other words, the text needs to be understood in the simplest reading: Occam's razor chomps off the necessity to refer to a previous report on the same matter.



> And we have to remember this writer is half-decent since he/she prefer not to write the subject, but you must write a subject after you wrote "宏くんはスペイン語を勉強しています。" This is the reason, he/she held back the subject, not that he/she intentionally omitted it.


I don't understand your reasons at all.  How is preferring not to write the subject different from intentionally omitting it?  To my mind they are the same in that they involve choice.  You say "this writer is half-decent."  Is being half-decent the purpose of not mentioning the subject? or the effect thereof? How does this article prefer decency to accuracy?  If it is the effect, what made the writer not to mention the subject?



> But, as I wrote before, he/she doesn't deserve to be criticized.


If the writer had withheld the subject, they would have merited a harsh criticism.  Grammatically, Korea is the likeliest author of the warning.  If JCG had been intended, it should have been mentioned explicitly as the subject.  I trust that Japanese medias knew very well that two countries issued separate warnings.  This brings me to the news values of the Korean warning.



> Again, in the beginning, Korea *informed *Japan of the drill.


First, I could not find how exactly Korea informed Japan.  You can forget all the nitty-gritty about international navigational warnings.  I claim no expert knowledge on that.  Still, one thing remains certain; that the two countries both issued warnings.  Even if you don't accept the materials I found on the KHOA's site, a warning is more plausible than "debatable."

The shooting drills got media attention last year because they took place in a zone on which two countries lay claim. [I am not going to take sides with either of the governments in this language forum.]  The media found news values in how Japan and Korea acted to support their positions and (if there is a chance) to advance them.  As a country's territory can be defined as the area in which it exercises its sovereignty, a country consolidates its claim to an area by exercising its sovereignty there.

Korea's naval drill was an example of its sovereign power.  Plus, they issued a navigational warning.  A country is obliged to keep everyone safe in its territories, and it is endowed with rights to take actions.  A navigational warning was another exercise of its power.

Japan, when it learned about the drills, reacted by a protest and a warning on their own.  It had to issue a warning to enforce safety within its territories, or to protect people from dangers whether they are of lawful or unlawful origin.  Japan, too, exercised its sovereign power.

Medias needed to cover all actions of both countries.  Then, they could assess how well their government did, find fault with unlawful actions of the other government, and insinuate to the public that their government did nothing but reasonable and lawful things.



> The most important thing is how people understand news when they hear them in particular circumstances and in this case the news was broadcast for people who live in Japan.


The most important thing is what exactly the text itself means.  A news article is more or less an objective account of events, and I find it uncomfortable to think that the reality changes according to the circumstances in which people hear the news.  We can later argue how the news fits in to the bigger picture, but first we must establish what facts are told in it.



> I don't expect news reporters to have perfect grammar sense.


What we read or hear in the news are the product of work by many people.  I expect the facts, the grammar, the style are all double- or triple-checked before someone reads the news in front of a TV camera.


----------



## spu001

> Alas, I am at a loss what you consider as a solid proof. At first you were so sure about the issuer of the warning. You said this much before considering the article I found or the second sentence in the article brought up by the OP:


Dear dear dear, I AM sure of the issuer who is mentioned in the OP's text, I didn't say whether KCG issued another warning is worthy of a debate, I said it's debatable, if not, disputable. Again, I've said what the writer tried to write is what we should know from the very start and we should have both of a grammarian's eye and a casual reader's eye, or else you miss opportunities when people give you information.


> Then you found that JCG did issue a warning and said that the OP's article should be understood in reference to this fact. [There, you implicitly shifted your position: I wonder what the original sentence would mean to you if it were not for the article published on 2014-06-19 16:57.] I think it is too demanding for the usual audience to remember such a small detail they heard a day before.


I wrote "Believe or not, I easily found that the Japanese issued that warning" before you championed yourself with an archived article, I think it's you who shifted a position and wonder what the OP's text would've meant to you if your time travel had failed. But it's no use wondering by saying "If it were not for the article published on 2014-06-19 16:57" and "if your time travel had failed. (I used your sentence to emphasize your pointless statement.)" The fact that NHK news reported that JCG issued the warning is by no means "demanding" for average joes (I bet their "usual" audience must remember previous reports since they're kept posted by their favorite broadcast station) because news always repeats same things in a same day and, the next day, continues from where it ended the day before. On top of that, the fact that JCG issued the warning is definitely not "small detail," people had to beware of what might have happened having been instructed by the warning from JCG, not KCG's warning that might have been noted by NHK and people near the disputed territory.


> It is a trivial detail, so small in comparison to the exercise itself. Now we are stuck because you refused to admit that Korea, too, made a warning. You may not take my link as evidence, but a Korean warning is more than plausible and has a certain value as news.





> It is a firsthand source worthy of sharing. If someone who speaks Korean stumbles upon this thread, they can confirm independently what I am going to say about it.
> No knowledge of Korean is required to understand important details in the link. First, it is a navigational warning by KHOA. Second, it says something was going to take place between 2014-06-20 and 06-24 (Common sense and a few online resources can tell that they are the scheduled date and four reserve days). Third, the coordinates match NHK's description of the warning zone.


Our universal Arabic numerals tells us that, on that date, they issued a warning, but we shouldn't talk about the detail of that record with a little help from Google translator. For you that's worthy, for me that's not, but again, I've said that the warning that's mentioned in the OP's text is JCG's one, we don't need to reinvent the wheel taking too much time to pick up another warning when hearing news, warning is warning, would you have waited and wasted time until another warning could have been confirmed if you had been near the territory? Hindsight is always 20/20, you can see what Korea did from their end one year after the matter, but the one thing that the news had to report was that JCG issued the warning to protect people near the territory at that time.



> You are confounding written and oral communications. The writers of a news item know much more about the subject than an average reader. A reader can assume all vital details to be found in the article itself. In other words, the text needs to be understood in the simplest reading: Occam's razor chomps off the necessity to refer to a previous report on the same matter.


No, confounding written and oral communications is the last thing I want to do, and, though I agree your statement about required attitudes of good writers and readers, your statement is tad idealistic, we know that grammarians should spread this principle all around the world, quite a few people depend on tacit knowledge arising from circumstances, and as it is, my stance is that I go with the flow and not force people to learn what I believe in.



> I don't understand your reasons at all. How is preferring not to write the subject different from intentionally omitting it? To my mind they are the same in that they involve choice. You say "this writer is half-decent." Is being half-decent the purpose of not mentioning the subject? or the effect thereof? How does this article prefer decency to accuracy? If it is the effect, what made the writer not to mention the subject?


I don't get your point. Point is, I didn't want to say "he/she forgot to write the subject" since I know news reporters have no plenty of time to check if all the words she/he must write are included and some words could well be held back in his/her heart, so it's not a matter of choice. And again, he/she is not to blame, if you mean that it was proof-readers' fault with your statement "I still find it a bad writing habit that proof-readers at NHK would never allow.", I will partially agree. But since it seems like you try to do sort of reductio ad absurdum by dissecting my expressions we're going to beat our heads against into a brick wall. I think we've gone separate ways as for this topic.

And I won't join your political discussions because reasoning that's based on political knowledge is too good to be plausible here, besides, I said it's not my cup of tea and we should leave it to political debaters, or else this thread loses its bearings. I defend my position for words' sake.



> Medias needed to cover all actions of both countries. Then, they could assess how well their government did, find fault with unlawful actions of the other government, and insinuate to the public that their government did nothing but reasonable and lawful things.


Absolutely not, they have to stay objective toward news and are nowhere near insinuation, if they can include all actions of both countries in an article or two that's an ideal, but they have to strike while the iron is hot, you have to know news of an incident ASAP when it takes place, that's why I don't criticize small things when I read news. My view point to the OP's text is like that from the outset.



> The most important thing is what exactly the text itself means. A news article is more or less an objective account of events, and I find it uncomfortable to think that the reality changes according to the circumstances in which people hear the news. We can later argue how the news fits in to the bigger picture, but first we must establish what facts are told in it.
> What we read or hear in the news are the product of work by many people. I expect the facts, the grammar, the style are all double- or triple-checked before someone reads the news in front of a TV camera.


Yes, what exactly the text itself means is one of important things but we need to use a key to the reality of news and the key is circumstances. As for news, we can't find realities by using petri dishes and test tubes in a grammarian's laboratory.
As a serious reader, I, too, count those ethical viewpoints, but all words depend on their circumstances and people don't want to miss opportunities.

In the end, The best thing we can do is, I suppose, agree to disagree with each other.

Spu


----------



## Flaminius

spu001 said:


> I AM sure of the issuer who was mentioned in the OP's text


We are debating over the issuer who was not mentioned in the article.  I say the grammar is clear enough to tell the subject and you say you need to take into account such things as circumstances, atmosphere, and tacit knowledge.  When I gave my two cents in, you refused to consider the information because it's not your cup of tea.



> I didn't say whether KCG issued another warning is worthy of a debate, it's debatable, if not, disputable. Again, I've said what the writer tried to write is what we should know from the very start and we should have both of a grammarian's eye and a casual reader's eye, or else you miss opportunities when people give you information.


If "what the writer tried to write is what we should know from the very start", then there is no sense in making a news item about it.  I wonder why the eye of a reader must be casual.  News items are explanations of the complicated reality but we still need explanations on what the news shows tell us.  Akira Ikagami is just an example of how explaining explanations can be a lucrative business.  You won't get very far if you "go with the flow."




> But it's no use wondering by saying "If it were not for the article published on 2014-06-19 16:57" and "if your time travel had failed."


It merely suggests we should go find the article that the OP quoted in #1 _supra_ and grapple with the whole text.  This, I did.  You still owe us an explanation on its second sentence, which I quote again as below:


> この問題は、韓国政府が海軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、竹島の南西沖の東西およそ150キロ、南北およそ55キロの海域に航行警報を出し、この海域の一部が日本の領海にかかっているとして、日本政府が訓練の中止を求めていたものです。


What do you think is the subject of 航行警報を出し?



> The fact that NHK news reported that JCG issued the warning is by no means "demanding" for average joes (also, their "usual audience" do remember previous reports,) because news always repeats same things in a same day and, the next day, continues from where it ended the day before.


Notice that the three articles discussed here are maintained outside the NHK site.  There is no knowing as to what other materials appeared and repeated in the news back then.



> On top of that, the fact that JCG issued the warning is definitely not "small detail," people had to beware of what might have happened having been instructed by the warning from JCG, not KCG's warning that might have been noted by NHK and people near the disputed territory.


Do you deny that the Korean warning was no less vital for maritime safety than the Japanese one?  The warnings we are talking about were triggered by a Korean naval drill in the (mostly) Korean waters.  Maybe you are aware of it.  Maybe you are pointing out the motives of NHK.  Then, you must see their coverage is less than very objective.



> but we shouldn't talk about the detail of that record with a little help from Google translator.


I didn't get help from Google Translate but from Google Maps.  The four coordinates matches the description of the zone by NHK.  For a more detailed account, read the Sankē News's description here.   It comes across terribly irresponsible if Korean authorities had not issued an warning about the drills that Japan, having been informed of it, issued a warning about.



> we don't need to reinvent the wheel taking too much time to pick up another warning when hearing news, warning is warning, would you have waited and wasted time until another warning could have been confirmed if you had been near the territory?


According to the NHK article you found in the Archive, the JCG warning was based on a report from Korea.  If there is a sudden change in the drills (e.g., postponement), which of the offices are likely to spread information first?



> I think that's the only warning the NHK reporter mentioned at that time for listeners/readers without hindsight.


It's not an objective understanding of the news.



> No, confounding written and oral communications is the last thing I want to do, and, though I agree your statement about required attitudes of good writers and readers, your statement is tad idealistic, we know that grammarians should spread this principle all around the world, quite a few people depend on tacit knowledge arising from circumstances, and as it is, my stance is that I go with the flow and not force people to learn what I believe in.


Tacit knowledge needs to be distinguished from assumption.  I am afraid going with the flow debilitates one's ability to check news stories against facts.



> I don't get your point, I don't want to say "he/she forgot" since I know news reporters have no plenty of time to check if all the words she/he must write were included and some words could well be held back in his/her heart but he/she is not to blame, if you mean that it was proof-readers' fault with your line "I still find it a bad writing habit that proof-readers at NHK would never allow.", I will partially agree.


I think I wrote in subjunctives.  What I mean is the mistake is so big that NHK could not have let it happen.



> Absolutely not, they have to stay objective toward news and are nowhere near insinuation, that's why they stick to the word 'として.'


I've discussed the topic above.  If you are still in doubt, consider who those "peoples" you meant:
- people had to beware of what might...
- and people near the...



> Yes, what exactly the text itself means is one of important things but we need to use keys to the reality and that's circumstances, not petri dishes and test tubes in grammarians' heads.
> I count those ethical viewpoints, too, but all words in their circumstances, people don't want to miss opportunities.


Can't we add to the "circumstances" a few tips on how JCG and KCG exchange info and some basics of political science?  You say you "count those ethical viewpoints".  I wonder where ethics came into our discussion.

Missing opportunities: Opportunities for what?  Is it the same thing as in "or else you miss opportunities when people give you information"?  I am sorry but it sounds like an opportunity to reinforce one's prejudice.


In a nutshell:
The likeliest subject of 海域に航行警報を出していた is the Koreans.  Grammar cannot exclude the remaining low possibility to the contrary, but the immediately next sentence clears all doubts.


----------



## spu001

> We are debating over the issuer who was not mentioned in the article. I say the grammar is clear enough to tell the subject and you say you need to take into account such things as circumstances, atmosphere, and tacit knowledge. When I gave my two cents in, you refused to consider the information because it's not your cup of tea.


YOU refuse to consider the fact taking a long long time to write your short "objective" message. I wrote my post early in the morning before you could say Jack Robinson and and edited it at lunchtime (since I thought that I put it too mildly and that you would misunderstand mild words like "debatable") There's no need to continue an argument(that you're eager to win) taking too much time. You're nitpicking, but in the first place we've been debating over the subject of "航行警報を出していた" in the OP's text since you reinvented the wheel in your fist post #6.



> If "what the writer tried to write is what we should know from the very start", then there is no sense in making a news item about it. I wonder why the eye of a reader must be casual. News items are explanations of the complicated reality but we still need explanations on what the news shows tell us. Akira Ikagami is just an example of how explaining explanations can be a lucrative business. You won't get very far if you "go with the flow."


"There is no sense in making a news item about it" if you have to retrieve information from the horse's mouth (in your case, KHOA) to confirm. people had to know the news at that time. you should read/hear news taking circumstances and contexts into account with a casual reader's eye(which you dislike so much) while keeping a grammarian's eye in the other side of your face, or else you can't decide what to do for a split second taking too much time. Again, if you had been near the disputed territory at that time you must have been decide what to do rather than you would have forced the news reporter to write clearly who did what. Mr. Akira Ikegami takes an hour to shed light on topics so as to be lucrative with hindsight. And you don't know the expression "go with the flow."



> It merely suggests we should go find the article that the OP quoted in #1 supra and grapple with the whole text. This, I did.
> この問題は、韓国政府が海軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、竹島の南西沖の東西およそ150キロ、南北およそ55キロの海域に航行警報を出し、この海域の一部が日本の領海にかかっているとして、日本政府が訓練の中止を求めていたものです。
> What do you think is the subject of 航行警報を出し?


What? do you think the article you retrieved from your time travel is the source of the OP's quote? I've already made a comment to the second sentence of the article you found in the time travel. I read the OP's quote and I explained what I had to explain, that's all.



> You still owe us an explanation on its second sentence, which I quote again as below:


Who is "us"? As you told Karlalou "The referent of "we" is unclear," "us" is ambiguous. YOU still owe readers (including me) an explanation on this "韓国が、射撃訓練を行うと通報してきた海域に、島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海が含まれていることが分かりました。 海上保安庁は、航行警報を出して付近を航行する船に注意を呼びかけています。".



> Notice that the three articles discussed here are maintained outside the NHK site. There is no knowing as to what other materials appeared and repeated in the news back then.


Oh well, it's obvious, that's because you time traveled and put an archived article on the table. The news was meant for people at that time, NOT for us in 2015. We understand today's news unless you're a type of person who watch news programs or read news articles a day a week.
cf. "news always repeats same things in a same day and, the next day, continues from where it ended the day before"



> Do you deny that the Korean warning was no less vital for maritime safety than the Japanese one? The warnings we are talking about were triggered by a Korean naval drill in the (mostly) Korean waters. Maybe you are aware of it. Maybe you are pointing out the motives of NHK. Then, you must see their coverage is less than very objective.


Yes indeed, you must tell urgent things first and JCG is in charge of protecting people who live in Japan (in this case, people who live near the disputed territory,) if someone had been unaware of JCG's warning and had sailed on the territory JCG would have been to blame but KCG wouldn't have because ultimately they are not in charge to protect Japanese people, if some Japanese people had sailed on the territory and had been inadvertently shelled by the Korean they could have escaped the responsibility by saying "we warned!" but the Japanese counterpart CAN NOT. note that I write in the subjunctive mood, we know that it didn't happen, but at that time no wonder the worst things might have happened so the news had to tell JCG issued the warning and news has to be concise and they can't put too many things on the table in an article unlike you do. Is that less than objective? absolutely not!



> I didn't get help from Google Translate but from Google Maps. The four coordinates matches the description of the zone by NHK. For a more detailed account, read the Sankē News's description here. It comes across terribly irresponsible if Korean authorities had not issued an warning about the drills that Japan, having been informed of it, issued a warning about.


Give me a break, we don't have to know that other news was irresponsible, the thing is, how you read OP's text, I understand you like politics so much, feel free to debate it, as I said before, somewhere else. I'm not with you as for politics.



> If there is a sudden change in the drills (e.g., postponement), which of the offices are likely to spread information first?


Obviously JCG would have issued second warning and news would have told people about it (more than KCG's second warning) and then people must have been aware of it. *but then the OP's text would have been no longer in use.  *I'll emphasize this again: the debate is about how you can read the OP's text. I said JCG is the subject of "航行警報を出していた" with no help from an archived article published on 2014-06-19 16:57 whereas you depend on an archived article. That's a pointless question.



> It's not an objective understanding of the news.


cf. the paragraph which starts with "Yes indeed, you must tell urgent things first" on this post. If some word must be considered 'not objective' in this thread it's "to insinuate."



> Tacit knowledge needs to be distinguished from assumption. I am afraid going with the flow debilitates one's ability to check news stories against facts.


Many people like to use their tacit knowledge,  I don't agree nor disagree about it, but that's the way it goes, you can make people frown and criticize them by saying their wordings don't follow grammar, but every word was born in a particular circumstance (even coined words, too) and is subject to change and allows you room to include a meaning that's not canonical in dictionaries, people use words like this way, though I dislike when people don't follow grammar in theoretical writhing or something like that,  I go with the flow and don't peddle ideas that I believe in. Again you don't know "go with the flow (which could be found in a "petri dish" that's called, 'Japanese-English dictionary,' but I've never used that I don't know if it can be found in it or not.)"



> I think I wrote in subjunctives. What I mean is the mistake is so big that NHK could not have let it happen


Then, disagree.



> I've discussed the topic above. If you are still in doubt, consider who those "peoples" you meant:
> - people had to beware of what might...
> - and people near the...


Literally.



> Can't we add to the "circumstances" a few tips on how JCG and KCG exchange info and some basics of political science? You say you "count those ethical viewpoints". I wonder where ethics came into our discussion.


What political science? oh, please don't retrieve more websites to champion yourself and to resume a political debate. I said your view point is idealistic and I put it mildly with the word 'ethical.' And again, I wonder how POLITICS came into our discussion.



> Missing opportunities: Opportunities for what?


cf. the paragraph which starts with "Yes indeed, you must tell urgent things" on this post.



> I am sorry but it sounds like an opportunity to reinforce one's prejudice.


Why does an opportunity have something to do with "prejudice"? Anyway, we're going to lose our bearings in this topic if you want to discuss "prejudice."



> In a nutshell:
> The likeliest subject of 海域に航行警報を出していた is the Koreans. Grammar cannot exclude the remaining low possibility to the contrary, but the immediately next sentence clears all doubts.


The likeliest(if I have to include KCG) subject is the Japanese.

I suggested that we be on a give-and-take as for this topic in my last post. We could agree to disagree. but since you refused and insist on your point of view we're stuck. you can feel free to conclude this thread at your turn by contributing one more comment to this, but then I'll go though. 

*The subject of "航行警報を出していた" in the OP's text is the Japanese.*

Spu


----------



## Flaminius

While I disagree most of the points you raised in your last post, there is a grievous misunderstanding.  I will concentrate on this.  I wrote in #15 _supra_:


Flaminius said:


> It merely suggests we should go find the article that the OP quoted in #1 _supra_ and grapple with the whole text.  This, I did.  You still owe us an explanation on its second sentence, which I quote again as below:
> 
> 
> 
> この問題は、韓国政府が海軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、竹島の南西沖の東西およそ150キロ、南北およそ55キロの海域に航行警報を出し、この海域の一部が日本の領海にかかっているとして、日本政府が訓練の中止を求めていたものです。
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is the subject of 航行警報を出し?
Click to expand...


You quoted my sentences flipping the order.  Perhaps that was unintended but it makes me look like a horrible bigot.


spu001 said:


> It merely suggests we should go find the article that the OP quoted in #1 supra and grapple with the whole text. This, I did.
> この問題は、韓国政府が海軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、竹島の南西沖の東西およそ150キロ、南北およそ55キロの海域に航行警報を出し、この海域の一部が日本の領海にかかっているとして、日本政府が訓練の中止を求めていたものです。
> What do you think is the subject of 航行警報を出し?
> 
> 
> 
> What? do you think the article you retrieved from your time travel is the source of the OP's quote? I've already made a comment to the second sentence of the article you found in the time travel. I read the OP's quote and I explained what I had to explain, that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still owe us an explanation on its second sentence, which I quote again as below:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is "us"? As you told Karlalou "The referent of "we" is unclear," "us" is ambiguous. YOU still owe readers (including me) an explanation on this "韓国が、射撃訓練を行うと通報してきた海域に、島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海が含まれていることが分かりました。 海上保安庁は、航行警報を出して付近を航行する船に注意を呼びかけています。".
Click to expand...


What I quoted above is the immediate next sentence in the text from which the OP quoted:


kaven-ever said:


> 韓国が今日、軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた問題で、韓国軍は予定通り、北朝鮮の潜水艦に対処する訓練を行いました。　From NHK



Here is the link again.

To answer your questions, "韓国が、射撃訓練を行うと通報してきた海域..." means JCG issued a warning based on the report from Korea.  It does not say anything about whether or not NHK make another news report about a Korean warning.

If the referent of "us" in my "You still owe us an explanation on its second sentence" was unclear, it means myself and other readers of this thread.  If this clears your doubts about my question, could you answer it?  I repeat it:

http://m.hujiang.com/jp_nhk/p725324/ with my emphasis


> *韓国が今日、軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、島根県の竹島沖の日本の領海を含む海域に航行警報を出していた問題で、韓国軍は予定通り、北朝鮮の潜水艦に対処する訓練を行いました。*この問題は、韓国政府が海軍の射撃訓練を行うとして、竹島の南西沖の東西およそ150キロ、南北およそ55キロの海域に航行警報を出し、この海域の一部が日本の領海にかかっているとして、日本政府が訓練の中止を求めていたものです


The first sentence in bold was quoted by the OP in the thread-opening post.  There is a debate over the issuer of the navigational alert.  I suggest we look at the next sentence which is the expansion of the lead sentence.  Now, what is the subject of 航行警報を出し?


----------

