I see what you’re saying, and it makes a lot of sense. But there are still a couple of things I need cleared up.
[quote=“puiwaihin”]Brothers and sisters can be reunited. That doesn’t mean they didn’t stop being family members.[/quote]This is true, but for them to reunite they still have to seperate in some sense. For this definition to hold, the PRC would have to admit that Taiwan is in some sense seperate, which is the one thing they will not do.
Also, since we’re dealing with Chinese-source stuff, we need to look at it this way - would you use 統一 in the situations you mention above? I may be wrong, but to me 統一 implies seperate pieces or units being brought together.
What a load of shit indeed, but it’s yours. Does this ring a bell? “When TWs said ‘independent’, they actually meant ‘not lawfully independent’.” Nice way to win an argument indeed.
Nope, no bells ringing. Why not? That’s not what I said, and nobody actually said “Taiwan is seeking independence, but is already independent” (except you).
And as I stated in the other post, various government people have said both that ‘seeking independence is important’ and that ‘Taiwan is already independent,’ with no actual change in Taiwan’s status in between those two statements.
I think they can accept the “heart and mind” sense. And I even think the idea of a reunification after a kidnapping makes for a good comparison. China can just say that war tore them apart (kidnapping), but they are still family. Now they need to come back and heal the emotional scars.
Not that I’m siding with the PRC, but I think the wording can be consistent.
China can not deny that there is a separation. That would just be plain stupid. “I cut your arm off.” “No you didn’t!” But they can claim that while they are in fact separated politically, the Chinese claim and sovereignty over the island has never been erased. Thus, if Taiwan claimed independence they would be secceeding even though they are already politically separate.
I think it can also refer to people’s opinions and hearts. But I’ve had to ask a native informant about this, my initial belief was that it had to be in rule.
What a load of rubbish. They meant ‘reunfication’ and that’s what it wrote.
Interesting tactic for trying to win an argument. “When they said x, they actually meant y”.[/quote]
Queen of Hearts logic - “Words mean exactly what i want them to mean.”
