От Chestnut
К FED-2
Дата 08.08.2008 18:22:04
Рубрики Локальные конфликты;

Вот, кстати, оттуда же более подробно по сабжу

Ambiguity in usage
In common usage, terms such as nations, country, land, and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., they can be used for a particular area or territory, or for the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state. In the English language, the terms do have precise meanings, but in daily speech and writing they are often used interchangeably, and are open to different interpretations.

In the strict sense, terms such as nation, ethnos, and 'people' (as in 'the Danish people') denominate a group of human beings. The concepts of nation and nationality have much in common with ethnic group and ethnicity, but have a more political connotation, since they imply the possibility of a nation-state. Country denominates a geographical territory, whereas state expresses a legitimized administrative and decision-making institution. Confusingly, the terms national and international are used as technical terms applying to states. International law, for instances, applies to relations between states, and occasionally between states on the one side, and individuals or legal persons on the other. Likewise, the United Nations represent states, while nations are not admitted to the body (unless a respective nation-state exists, which can become a member).

Usage also varies from country to country. As an example, the United Kingdom is an internationally recognised sovereign state, which is also referred to as a country and whose inhabitants have British nationality. It is however traditionally divided into four home nations - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. These are not sovereign states in their own right. The island of Ireland is now divided into the sovereign Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland, which remains part of the United Kingdom. The current status, in any case, is controversial and disputed, since there are secessionist movements in England, Scotland and Wales, and for example, Cornwall is considered by some to be a separate nation, within the country of England. Usage of the term nation is not only ambiguous, it is also the subject of political disputes, which may be extremely violent.

When the term 'nation' has any implications of claims to independence from an existing state, its use is controversial. In November 2006 the Canadian House of Commons passed a motion to "recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.", an unusual concession to sovereigntist terminology, even though it explicitly places them within Canada.[1].[2] Minister Michael Chong resigned in protest, saying '"To me, recognizing Quebecers as a nation, even inside a united Canada, implies the recognition of ethnicity, and I cannot support that. I do not believe in an ethnic nationalism. I believe in a civic nationalism."[3] This event highlighted the confusion around the motion, as Bloc québécois MPs had understood it as inclusive of all Quebecers, irrespective of their ethnic origin.[10]

The term nation is widely used, by extension or metaphor, to describe any group promoting some common interest or common identity, see Red Sox Nation and Queer Nation.


>отсюда:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation .

"Бій відлунав. Жовто-сині знамена затріпотіли на станції знов"
От FED-2
К Chestnut (08.08.2008 18:22:04)
Дата 08.08.2008 18:53:47

Re: Вот, кстати,...


> ...

>In common usage, terms such as nations, country, land, and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., they can be used for a particular area or territory, or for the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state. In the English language, the terms do have precise meanings, but in daily speech and writing they are often used interchangeably, and are open to different interpretations.

> ...

Извините, может я плохо понял, но мне казалось, что дискуссия здесь велась о юридических понятиях, "международном законе", идеях некакого ректора Принстона или инного Гарварда избранного президентом, а не о том как слово "нэйшн" воспринимается читателем "газеты" "Сан".
От Chestnut
К FED-2 (08.08.2008 18:53:47)
Дата 08.08.2008 19:38:19

Re: Вот, кстати,...

>Извините, может я плохо понял, но мне казалось, что дискуссия здесь велась о юридических понятиях, "международном законе", идеях некакого ректора Принстона или инного Гарварда избранного президентом, а не о том как слово "нэйшн" воспринимается читателем "газеты" "Сан".

естественно, речь именно и шла о том, как это воспринимал ректор Принстона

"Бій відлунав. Жовто-сині знамена затріпотіли на станції знов"
От Манлихер
К Chestnut (08.08.2008 18:22:04)
Дата 08.08.2008 18:27:34

Никак не пойму - что Вы доказать-то хотите? (-)
От Chestnut
К Манлихер (08.08.2008 18:27:34)
Дата 08.08.2008 18:36:00

Всего-навсего

указать, что это самое "право" часто понимается не так, как изначально предполагалось его понимать

А Вы почему-то бороться принялись с чем-то и английскому меня учить.

Я, кстати, с самого начала оговорился, что речь идёт об английском понимании термина (что важно, ибо папа джинна именно был англоговорящим)

"Бій відлунав. Жовто-сині знамена затріпотіли на станції знов"
От Манлихер
К Chestnut (08.08.2008 18:36:00)
Дата 09.08.2008 03:33:44

http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/co/1662165.htm (-)