The thing is that this statement does not just have one meaning. It has three separate meanings, and the listener can't tell the difference except from context.
I personally think that the trope is in the misunderstanding, not the individual meanings.
From King Zeal's description, this doesn't really sound like the kind of concept that would easily cross culture lines. But I'll concede the point that the examples should speak for themselves if the description is clarified (and the trope is renamed).
Well, the whole "this thing can have multiple meanings depending on context" has led to people putting any instance of this line of dialogue. It's just a stock phrase because of that.
Really, many, many things can have different meanings based on context. We shouldn't lump together things simply because they contain the same phrase. That's not what this site is for.
I think he means, "I don't think the individual meanings of the phrase are more of actual tropes than the phrase itself is an actual trope (as opposed to just a Stock Phrase)." Basically comparing the individual meanings to the phrase itself, and not in favour of the individual meanings.
Right. To my understanding, meanings A, B, and C are three stock phrases (which happen to all be the same sentence) rather than tropes, in much the same way as the sentence is a stock phrase (albeit one with three possible interpretations) rather than a trope.
I don't know if those are "meanings" so much as methods of delivering the line. The A/B/C variations seem to be otherwise pointless to the overall trope.
What the trope is, from what I've gathered from Japanese media, is that it's romantic undertones that arise from someone declaring that they will protect someone else, whether or not said undertones were intentional or reciprocated.
So, you agree with the "Not Tropeworthy" description?
Well, if you write it about the romantic connotations of the line, it basically becomes "the JAPANESE way of saying something romantic", and that's... uh...
Unless there's something to tie those examples together besides the choice of words, I'm not seeing anything here. It's not exactly hard to find instances of people saying "I will protect you" and so on.
Rename definitely to avoid Zero-Context Example of a stock phrase. A redefinition will help hammer this point in
edited 1st Dec '12 11:00:22 PM by ChaoticNovelist
Alternative Titles: I Will Protect Her
15th Jan '13 8:12:17 AM
Vote up names you like, vote down names you don't. Whether or not the title will actually be changed is determined with a different kind of crowner (the Single Proposition crowner). This one just collects and ranks alternative titles.
The previous crowner voted to merge I Will Definitely Protect You and I Will Protect Her, with a new, non-dialog title. Please propose and vote for new titles to represent the combined trope, which is about a person swearing to protect another person.