Business magnate: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Chunbum Park mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
A '''business magnate''', sometimes referred to as a baron, industrialist, magnate, mogul, or tycoon, is a slightly informal term used to refer to an entrepreneur who helped create or who have dominated their industries. | |||
A '''business | |||
== Etymology == | == Etymology == | ||
The word ''tycoon'' has its origin in the [[Japan]]ese title ''Nihonkoku taikun'', or the "Sovereign Lord of Japan," used to refer to the Japanese [[shogun]] in the pre-modern diplomatic dialogues between [[Joseon Dynasty|Korea]] and Japan. The term first came into use in 1635 to substitute descriptions that were offensive either to the Koreans or to the Japanese. For example, the title "King of Japan" for the shogun was disagreeable to the Japanese because it implied that Japan was subservient to the Chinese emperor as a part of the [[Chinese tributary system|sinocentric world order]].<ref name="hawley574">Hawley, 2005. pp. 574</ref> | |||
=== notes === | === notes === | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}}[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]] | ||
Latest revision as of 11:00, 22 July 2024
A business magnate, sometimes referred to as a baron, industrialist, magnate, mogul, or tycoon, is a slightly informal term used to refer to an entrepreneur who helped create or who have dominated their industries.
Etymology
The word tycoon has its origin in the Japanese title Nihonkoku taikun, or the "Sovereign Lord of Japan," used to refer to the Japanese shogun in the pre-modern diplomatic dialogues between Korea and Japan. The term first came into use in 1635 to substitute descriptions that were offensive either to the Koreans or to the Japanese. For example, the title "King of Japan" for the shogun was disagreeable to the Japanese because it implied that Japan was subservient to the Chinese emperor as a part of the sinocentric world order.[1]
notes
- ↑ Hawley, 2005. pp. 574