In the recent “Shogun” miniseries, the English-speaking characters conspicuously referred to Japan as “the Japans.” The creators of the miniseries seem to have put considerable effort into historical accuracy - if not for the actual story, then at least for things like culture, dress, and language (my Japanese-born wife said they were speaking a very antiquated form of Japanese).
According to something I read on the internet (so you know it’s true…), Japan did indeed used to be referred to as “the Japans”, as is the fashion for many nations that exist on a collection of islands. Modern examples would include the Philippines, the Maldives, and the Bahamas.
So what happened between then and now such that we no longer refer to Japan as the Japans?
Perhaps because there was a government that asserted control over all of the islands, through the Emperor of Japan (subject to shoguns, of course)? That there was an existing polity there, unlike the other islands?
My ignorance may be showing, but I don’t think there were central governments for the Philippines or the Bahamas when Europeans began to interact with them?
I think this is basically it. When the Europeans arrived, they saw a feudal state with no effective central government (kind of like the Holy Roman Empire?) and didn’t see the deep cultural, linguistic, and historic ties that held everything together. Japan started getting re-unified in the middle of the 16th century by Oda Nobunaga, who was nearly there when he was assassinated; Toyotomi Hideyoshi finished the job, and Tokugawa Ieyasu took it over and locked it down in his own name, all roughly by the end of the 16th century. Through all this there continued to be emperors, who were, if not effective rulers, at least symbolic heads of state.
There are also archipelago nations that aren’t called The-This or The-That. Indonesia, for instance - thousands of islands. It seems just kind of random.
Except “Indonesia” is apparently a European name, taken from Greek, meaning the Indian islands:
Indonesia derives from the Greek script, Indus (Ἰνδός), meaning “Indian Ocean”, and nésos (νῆσος), meaning “island”.[23] The name dates to the 18th century, far predating the formation of independent Indonesia.[24]
Imagine the story had been the other way around and it had been a Japanese sailor travelling to England. As a sailor with very little knowledge of English society, he might refer to his location as the British Isles. The geography is the first thing outsiders are going to learn about a place.
But the people who live there don’t think of their home primarily in geographic terms. They see themselves as living in the Kingdom of England (in the time period Shogun is set in) or the United Kingdom (in current terms).
As outsiders grows more familiar with the local society, they become more likely to adopt the local viewpoint. We begin seeing England or Japan as countries rather than islands.
Hearn was a full 300 years after the period of Shogun.
I don’t speak Portuguese, might he been using their terminology? But Japan is also 4 main islands. 3 of were recently (partially in some cases) conquered by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, integrating it into a semi-unified kingdom (Ryukyu would be much later). The X is often used for archipelagos.
What exactly does it say about Japan being called “the Japans”? Does your cite claim it was the preferred term or that at least one person has said that at least once in history? There is a difference.
I haven’t heard of this over the years, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Most of the historical sources I’ve read start in the 1850s. For example, in 1953, Commodore Matthew Perry lead his ships into Tokyo Bay (but called Edo Bay at the time), he brought a letter addressed to the Emperor of Japan.
The term “Japan” has also been documented earlier. From wiki
Looking at google books, while there seem to be a few instances in “The Japans” appearing in print, “Japan” is much more prevalent, but google books isn’t necessarily that reliable.
I think it has to be better established that Japan was actually called “The Japans” before the question can be asked why the change.
Perhaps the producers felt the “The Japans” would make it seem more historic without necessarily being accurate.
I also found reference to a 1585 book published in Portuguese and is said to be the first European description of Japan. The book refers to Japan as Japão.
This is a modern book in English examing the historical book
Yeah, it’s only a Reddit discussion, so not exactly an authoritative source, although one viewer did point to this Google Ngram result showing that “the japans” isn’t a new thing that was just made up for Shogun. They note that the use of the single word “Japan” by itself occurs several hundred times more often than the aforementioned variants, which is why it was left out of that Ngram. The earliest appearance in writing looks to be the early 1800s, but it had considerably more appearances between 1880 and 1940, especially compared to “the empire of japan” and “japanese empire”.
“The Japans” is not mentioned on this Wikipedia page:
The difficulty arises when distinguishing the geographical collection of islands from the nation. Do the Japanese have a word for the collection of islands? I’ve seen “home islands” in English, but not sure of its authenticity.
As someone who lived in various parts of Japan on and off for approximately 20 and who is fluent in written & spoken Japanese, I would say they refer to it as “日本列島” which translates to the Japanese archipelago. There are surely other ways in which they refer to it, but the example I gave is quite common. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_archipelago
Is your assertion that Japanese has no way to express plurality? Such a claim would definitely reinforce the idea that Japanese citizens think of their nation singularly, since apparently they can’t think of it any other way, so a pluralized version of rhe country’s name would be even more foreign and inauthentic.
But of course, that claim is silly, so I’m going to assume you’re just fixated on the idea that plurality has to be inherent to the noun form itself, instead of being phrasal, which is how plurality is actually expressed in Japanese.