This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
A pragmatical interpretation of the phrase would be "枪杆子出政权" or "He rules, who wins."
Wenjer Leuschel (X)
Taiwan
15:57 May 20, 2008
@Tony: Well, it is obvious with the context that Li Xiehe was of the opinion that a nation could not be established without military forces (for defense and other purposes). However, he was aware of the risk of a military dictatorship.
Wenjer Leuschel (X)
Taiwan
15:52 May 20, 2008
Don't worry. The problems are not mine. I just happen to live in Taiwan now, but not for long. It's always easier to love one's homeland in a distance, isn't it? (Especially when one's living depends on it.)
855649 (X)
15:35 May 20, 2008
hehe dear Tony, ur so cute, thanks so much! Wenjer and I were just discussing something out of the topic, for fun :P maybe tmrw we would extend to problems between China and Taiwan, lol~j/k! sorry for disturbing~
855649 (X)
15:30 May 20, 2008
it wasn't strong enough,yeah, but its still so-called "defense forces", wan't it? otherwise what will you name it? Meanwhile, its a country, why didn't the ppl care to be ruled by others? If Iraqi didn't care to be ruled, nobody would have died.
Well, we are not going into historical discussion. This is no forum after all. But concerning defense forces, Shu wasn't strong enough to defend itself. Besides, the people in Shu wasn't for defense. They didn't care to be ruled by others.
855649 (X)
15:07 May 20, 2008
呵呵 不过好像越扯越远，跑题啦~~ 重点是“非....无以...”句式的使用:P
855649 (X)
14:58 May 20, 2008
嗯，没错的~ 我并不是说，有“攻打的能力就一定要去攻打的”。就像当今很多国家也具备攻打别人的能力呀，但是他们就不选择攻打 :) 呃。。或者举个简单的例子，我们知道三国“魏蜀吴”，但是最后“蜀国”还是被灭了，可是我们能说蜀国没有“defence forces"吗？事实上，蜀国也是拥有“defense forces”的，不至于连个士兵都没有的，对吧? 但是它无法“立”，因为它的力量没有巨大到足以攻打别人，使别人畏惧 （没有说一定要攻打哦）that's what i meant
Wenjer Leuschel (X)
Taiwan
14:46 May 20, 2008
The Chinese character of 武 shows that we use weapon (戈) to stop (止) intrusion (- above 戈), which means definitely defense, not violence against others. For violence, we have another word composed of two characters --- 暴力.
855649 (X)
14:28 May 20, 2008
其实我觉得这句话还是有点上下文不完整。 如果放在现代社会的话，那么这种“武力”理解为"defense forces"也可以，“抵御外敌”的武力装备，just like Japan. 但是放在古代的话，那就不行了，光能“抵御外敌”就远远不够，还要具备足以攻打别人的能力，这样别人才会惧怕，才不敢侵犯，才足以让国家“立足”，稳定。所以不同的情况还要考虑是要"defense forces" or "armed forces"/"military forces"
Wenjer Leuschel (X)
Taiwan
13:45 May 20, 2008
"非武力" in the context of "非...无以..." is quite different from "非...国防". The semantic is decided by the syntax.
peer agreement (net): +3