# Translation: Geographical names: abuses.



## TimeHP

Hi all.
Don't you think that western civilization shouldn't change the geographical names of places in the world? 
Examples:
I don't understand why we call Mount Everest the mount Qomolonga, a name that in Tibetan language means something like Goddess Mother of the Earth.    
And I think that before Cristoforo Colombo and Amerigo Vespucci, America had its name, that was that used from the first inhabitants... 

Thank you


----------



## Pivra

If the abuses of geographical names are wrong then the UN should ban Chinese.


----------



## maxiogee

TimeHP said:
			
		

> I don't understand why we call Mount Everest the mount Qomolonga, a name that in Tibetan language means something like Goddess Mother of the Earth.



As the mountain is neither a goddess not the mother of the earth then that name is as erroneous as Mount Everest.

Don't all languages mistreat geographical names?
The Irish for England is Sasana, derived from the word "Saxon".
And I note that you indicate that you are a native of "Italian - Italy". Shoudl that not be "Italiano - Italia"? 

As a native of a bi-lingual state I can tell you that whilst many placenames are transliterations here, there are some which don't bear any relation to their counterpart in the other language. The name of *Dublin* derives from the Irish for 'black pool' - 'dubh linn', but the Irish for Dublin is totally different - *Baile Átha Cliath *- '_the town of the ford of the wattles_', after an old river crossing at the shallowest part of the River Liffey. 
Do we worry about that? 
Not a bit. Whoopeeee — we've got _two_ names and most people only have one!


----------



## Tsoman

Isn't it that words only have the meanings that we give them?


----------



## Brioche

TimeHP said:
			
		

> Hi all.
> Don't you think that western civilization shouldn't change the geographical names of places in the world?
> Examples:
> I don't understand why we call Mount Everest the mount Qomolonga, a name that in Tibetan language means something like Goddess Mother of the Earth.
> And I think that before Cristoforo Colombo and Amerigo Vespucci, America had its name, that was that used from the first inhabitants...
> 
> Thank you


 
Why only _western_ civilization?

Every language has the "right" to use whatever words it desires for any concept, including geographical concepts.

Italians have the right to call bread "pane", and the right to call Paris "Parigi", and the right to call the Hellenic Republic "Grecia"

The Chinese have the right to call bread "mian bao", and the right to call Paris "Bali", and the right to call the Hellenic Republic "Xila".


----------



## panjabigator

It's not really an issue with me.  The only thing that gets my blood boiling is when Native Americans are called Indians...they have their own names.


----------



## southerngal

How did they get the name of Indians?  They aren't from India!


----------



## tafanari

I think it's because the first Europeans who came to America were lost and the name stuck. The Indians that I know don't mind being called Indian at all even though the are Navajo and Apache. On the other hand, some people who are indeed from the Indian subcontinent and share a great deal, culturally, historically, and linguistically, with people from the Republic of India, get very insulted if you call them Indian. It's a matter of personal choice, I guess. And politics.

I often refer to myself and my people as "Spanish" even though my parents are from the Spanish-speaking Caribbean. Some people might think that's inaccurate but I don't care and neither does the guy in the restaurant across the street who sells "Spanish and American food". Like the translator in that movie with Jim Carey said: "That's how they know you."


----------



## tafanari

Brioche said:
			
		

> Why only _western_ civilization?
> 
> 
> Italians have the right...to call Paris "Parigi"



No! No! No! It's Lutèce!


----------



## TimeHP

> Every language has the "right" to use whatever words it desires for any concept, including geographical concepts


 
Clear. You're talking about languages that have their own vocabulary and about exonym and endonym.
But I was talking about Geographical renaming. Recently many colonial territories seek to come back to the original names. I've read that in India a lot of cities have been renamed recently. Reclaiming the ancient heritage is a cultural decision, I suppose.


----------



## robbie_SWE

Have to agree with most posts here. It's up to every language to decide what name they want to give to geographical places. BUT there is one thing that really annoys me about geographical names in Italian (maybe it's off-topic, but I'll give it a go  )!!!

It is VERY VERY wrong to have two different geographical places with the same name. 

Münich/München = Monaco
Monaco = Monaco

How do you differentiate between them?? "Partirò al Monaco" "Quale??"  

 robbie


----------



## TimeHP

> It's up to every language to decide what name they want to give to geographical places


 
I never said the opposite.
But maybe I can't explain what I'd like to say. I'm giving up... 



> How do you differentiate between them?? "Partirò per Monaco" "Quale??"


 
We usually say: Monaco di Baviera e Principato di Monaco.

Ciao


----------



## ireney

TimeHP  I _think_ I understand what you refer to.

You don't mind if a name is changed in transliteration (e.g.  Roma becoming Rome in English or Romi in Greek)
You aparently don't mind if the name used for a geographical location is not the one the 'natives' use (or ever used in the past in some cases)  (e.g. Dublin or Greece)

What you are talking about, if I am not mistaken is when someon chooses to give a name to a geographical formation or location without any reference to the local vocabulary so to speak? I mean would it be ok if the West didn't call Mt Everest Qomolonga or Goddess-Mother of Earth and instead decided to call it a mangled version of a foothill of Qomolonga?

Did I get it right?

You are against arbitrary naming of locations/features previously named by some others without any reference to the language of the natives?


----------



## panjabigator

There is a place in Florida called Howey-in-the-Hills!  Seriously...why?  I think an indigenous name would be much more appropriate.


----------



## tafanari

More appropiate for whom?


----------



## maxiogee

panjabigator said:
			
		

> There is a place in Florida called Howey-in-the-Hills!  Seriously...why?  I think an indigenous name would be much more appropriate.


What is the etymology of the name? Could it be an interpretation of a indigenous name?


----------



## foxfirebrand

panjabigator said:
			
		

> It's not really an issue with me. The only thing that gets my blood boiling is when Native Americans are called Indians...they have their own names.


This might interest you.  Some few years ago Congress appropriated multi-millions of dollars to create a monumental museum in Washington DC, to honor "Native" peoples and educate the rest of us about them-- it was of course to be called the National Native-American Museum.

Problem was, nobody asked the "Native-Americans" about it.  Many of them started loudly objecting, and the opposition to the name finally got too overpowering for even Congress to ignore.  A poll was taken, probably the first and only ever, to determine what American Blackfeet, Cherokee, Seminole, etc, etc people call themselves and would prefer to be called.

This was a very widespread poll, and the results were surprising to many in Washington-- but not to those of us who live as neighbors with these people.  By an overmajority of *eighty percent*, the respondants chose American Indian.

Believe it or not, the Government did not ignore the facts that were staring them in the face-- and the place was named the Museum of the American Indian.  All this can be researched, if you don't believe me-- Google will probably turn up enough evidence to convince almost anyone.

You are right that "they" have their own names-- tribal names.  When the need arises, I call the people I know Flatheads or Blackfeet or Crow or Northern Cheyenne-- but if I don't know the tribe, I call them Indians.  I also call them my brothers, and I do so in face-to-face conversations-- the sort of thing few people in DC and other big eastern cities have probably ever done.

Another poster (quite a ways back) thought we should call the American continent by the name the post-Ice-Age immigrants from north-central Asia called it.  To my knowledge they didn't have a name for it, and I doubt if they thought of the world as divided up into continents.
.


----------



## Tsoman

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Another poster (quite a ways back) thought we should call the American continent by the name the post-Ice-Age immigrants from north-central Asia called it.  To my knowledge they didn't have a name for it, and I doubt if they thought of the world as divided up into continents.
> .


plus there must have been a hundreds languages on the continent at that time. What language should the name come from?


----------



## ireney

Then there's always the case of France which we persist in calling Gallia (Γαλλία). It _is_ after all closer to the name used for the people the various tribes that lived there belonged to (Celts)  

How about Switzerland which we persistently call Helvetia? (Ελβετία).

There's also Germany's case to consider too (Γερμανία in Greek) and all these countries are definitely more to the West than we are


----------



## foxfirebrand

ireney said:
			
		

> How about Switzerland which we persistently call Helvetia? (Ελβετία).


That is the official name of the country, isn't it?  Back in the pre-Euro days their coins were stamped CONFEDERATIO HELVETIA, or something very close to that.  The domain you see in Swiss URLs is "ch."
.


----------



## panjabigator

Lets go even further back.  Laurasia and Gonwandaland.


----------



## ireney

Whoops! My bad there! I forgot their official name actually derived from the Latin (as our version of it does). Thanks for the heads up


----------



## Frank06

Hi TimeHP, all,


			
				TimeHP said:
			
		

> Don't you think that western civilization shouldn't change the geographical names of places in the world?
> Examples: I don't understand why we call Mount Everest the mount Qomolonga, a name that in Tibetan language means something like Goddess Mother of the Earth.    And I think that before Cristoforo Colombo and Amerigo Vespucci, America had its name, that was that used from the first inhabitants...


Interesting post, but I think this would give some rather huge problems... 

An example:
At the begining of last year there was a huge row among Iranians over the alleged abuse of a geographical name. _The Washington Times _managed to "re-name" the Persian Gulf into "Arabic Gulf" (it also got published on a map), which enraged quite a few Iranians.
Tons of petitions, letters of complaint flooded many Iran and Persian related e-groups and message boards. The Arabic/Persian Gulf quarrel even made it onto Iranian tv.
Seems that "Arabic Gulf" denoting the Persian Gulf is a fairly recent development, even though till the sixties 'Al-Khalij Al-Farsi' was used in Arabic literature, while Arabic Gulf (or Sea) was used to refer to the Red Sea, if I got it well.
BTW, most sources (including the UN) stick to Persian Gulf)
Quite a mess.

But this brings me to my second example: the Mediterranian Sea. Which term would you consider to be abusive, and why? 
The Wikipedia article on the Mediterranian Sea mentions following names:
In Latin 'Mare nostrum', 'mare internum'; in (Biblical) Hebrew 'Hinder Sea', 'The Sea', 'Western Sea', 'Sea of the Philistines', 'the Great Sea'; in Turkish 'The White Sea'; in Arabic 'the Middel White Sea'. I'll skip a few names from other languages and end with English 'The Med'. [I think we can agree upon the last one ;-)].

But which name would you suggest in this particular case, without being "abusive" and why?
And I think we can come up with many similar examples...

Well, I don't, erm, see any abuse at all, but maybe that's because I live in a country where certain cities have up to three different names (as Luik, Liège, Lüttich) and where the French adaptation of the Dutch name comes closer to the original, older Dutch name, as in (Dutch) Brussel, (Fr.) Bruxelles (locally often pronounced as /bryksel/, and the oldest name(s) (Dutch) _Bruocsella_, _Brucsella_ or _Broekzele._

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ireney

Well the Med is just short for Mediterranean which comes from the  Latin name Mediterraneum mare(Mare Nostrum was by no means the 'official' name the Romans used) which in Greek is Mesogeios (Μεσόγειος). So, since two of the old civilisations of the region call it so, I don't think TimeHP would consider it abusive (if I have understood his logic well).

I am not sure if I have understood exactly what TimeHP means mind you. I think I can safely say that he opposes the 'habit' of naming a geographical region/feature using a name completely unrelated to the one the locals use.

I am not sure however how he feels about the 'habit' of using a wrong word (Britain, Grecia etc) that is not completely unrelated per se or a word which _could_ be considered 'correct' in the past but no more (See my previous post [#20] about France).

If I understood correctly he doesn't mind wrong transliterations (such as Beijing, becoming Pekino in Greek from the old English Peking ) although I am sure he seems to object to i.e. Belarus been called 'White Russia'.

Mind you this is my personal take on TimeHP position from what I understand by his posts. I have asked him before to correct me if I am wrong in my assumptions so that we won't argue about something we all agree with and I am certain he will tell me (probably how wrong I am  )

My personal take by the way is: What's done is done. Changing some things is too much of a trouble unless of course the native people object strongly and with good reason (Belarus i.e.). I think we should be careful with the way we transcribe anything not transcribed up to now (I think we are) and change whatever there is good reason to change. I don't think there's any good reason to change the name of Mt. Everest though unless it is significant for the Tibetans for us to do so.

If we start changing everything I think my parents are going to have a stroke by the way. They still try to re-learn the names of the new African countries or of those who gained their independence after the division of the USSR  for one.


----------



## tafanari

ireney said:
			
		

> I am not sure if I have understood exactly what TimeHP means mind you. I think I can safely say that he opposes the 'habit' of naming a geographical region/feature using a name completely unrelated to the one the locals use.



The question I'd like to ask is: Who are the locals?


----------



## Brioche

ireney said:
			
		

> How about Switzerland which we persistently call Helvetia? (Ελβετία).


 
Have you ever seen a Swiss postage stamp?

The Swiss themselves write *Helvetia* on their stamps. It is the Latin name for the country.


----------



## TimeHP

> Did I get it right?


 
Yes, you did! What a relief! 
What I ask is: why should colonizers have the right to change the original toponyms?



> Well, I don't, erm, see any abuse at all, but maybe that's because I live in a country where certain cities have up to three different names


 
Maybe. Or Maybe because your country is not a colony of some powerful empire...



> The question I'd like to ask is: Who are the locals?


 
Example:
Zimbabwe was formerly known as southern Rhodesia, named from the English explorer who colonized it, Cecil Rhodes. Its present name, Zimbabwe, is the original one, in Bantu language of the indigenous people.
Zimbabwe means 'sacred house', and I suppose for indigenous people is the best and perfect toponym. 

Ciao


----------



## Brioche

Zimbabwe is not the "original" name.
Zimbabwe/Rhodesia/Southern Rhodesia is a country created by European colonisers. It did not previously exist.

The country _Zimbabwe_ takes is name from _Great Zimbabwe_, the ruined remains of a city in the south-east of the country.


----------



## TimeHP

The story of the country is too much complicated to write it here. But here is a link.
Zimbabwe Vacations & Safaris | Zimbabwe Safari Tours & Vacations
Anyway it was just an example. Just like that of Mount Everest.
There a lot of places in the world where people are changing geographical names which were chosen and imposed by colonizers.

Thank you.
Ciao


----------



## Outsider

TimeHP said:
			
		

> Hi all.
> Don't you think that western civilization shouldn't change the geographical names of places in the world?


But we haven't done that in a while, now. We have been trying to behave. 



			
				TimeHP said:
			
		

> And I think that before Cristoforo Colombo and Amerigo Vespucci, America had its name, that was that used from the first inhabitants...


I don't think so. What name would that have been?


----------



## ireney

Brioche thank you for pointing out a mistake Foxfirebrand has already pointed out and I have acknowledged.


----------



## fenixpollo

Here I am! 


			
				ireney said:
			
		

> I am not sure if I have understood exactly what TimeHP means mind you. I think I can safely say that he opposes the 'habit' of naming a geographical region/feature using a name completely unrelated to the one the locals use.
> 
> I am not sure however how he feels about the 'habit' of using a wrong word (Britain, Grecia etc) that is not completely unrelated per se or a word which _could_ be considered 'correct' in the past but no more (See my previous post [#20] about France).
> 
> If I understood correctly he doesn't mind wrong transliterations (such as Beijing, becoming Pekino in Greek from the old English Peking ) although I am sure he seems to object to i.e. Belarus been called 'White Russia'.


 Actually, "wrong transliterations" is an error that should be corrected for. It has, recently, as the English name for Bombay was changed to Mumbai. (I fail to see, however, how "Peking" is simply a bad transliteration of "Beijing"). London should be London no matter how far you get from it.

English isn't the only language that should change! All languages have assigned some place names that are not related to the original. Wouldn't it improve cross-cultural communication if everyone called Germany by the name "Deutchland", for example?

I agree that the politics of place names is difficult. Even inside the U.S., the current English names of some places are the third or fourth name that particular place has been given, by a series of invaders and groups intent on laying claim to the place (different tribes, the English, Spanish, French...). 

Not every place name should be changed, of course. And people shouldn't worry about bending over backwards to pronounce a place-name just as the locals pronounce it. If English-speakers pronounce "France" with a short "a" instead of a long "ah", we should be excused; and we should also be forgiven if we mangle the pronunciation of more complicated place names.  

Parangaricutirimícuaro, anyone?


----------



## tafanari

TimeHP said:
			
		

> Example:
> Zimbabwe was formerly known as southern Rhodesia, named from the English explorer who colonized it, Cecil Rhodes. Its present name, Zimbabwe, is the original one, in Bantu language of the indigenous people.
> Zimbabwe means 'sacred house', and I suppose for indigenous people is the best and perfect toponym.
> 
> Ciao



But the Bantu people are not originally from there either. They migrated there from somewhere else just like other ethnic groups who came to the area, including the British. What makes them local/indigenous? That they immigrated first? Is it a first come first served thing?

This may seem like a silly argument but many countries all over the world have this problem. For example, in Algeria, there is was an Arabization programme after independence to make things more local but what about the Berber population? They're not Arabs. They were there before the Arabs invaded.  Why force another foreign language on them? So they renamed Constantine and Oran and gave them Arabic names. But many of my Berber friends insist that Arabic is a language from Arabia and has nothing to do with their heritage.

It kind of reminds me of some black nationalists who change their name from "Craig Wilson" to "Malik Abdul Sharif" under the impression that the former is a "slave name" or a "white name" and the latter an "African name."

Well, it's not an African name. It's an Arabic name. And the Arabs had black slaves too. So I don't know what we would gain by changing names "back" to whatever sounds original because few things are.

Is New Amsterdam the original name for New York? Well, yes and no. Before that, I guess Mana hata was controlled by the Lepe but were these the original inhabitants or did they buy the island for much cheaper than 24 dollars from somebody else?


----------



## Fernando

You have my permission to call España, "Spain", "Spanien", "Espagne", "Espanha", "Al Andalus", "Spagna", the name given by those evil invaders, Romans and Arabs.


----------



## french4beth

A dear friend pointed out a sad but true point about American housing developments: once the species is wiped out, the street is named after it - usually, Elm Street has no elms on it, Quail Run has no quail, and on and on...


----------



## optimistique

tafanari said:
			
		

> Is New Amsterdam the original name for New York?



You mean '_*Nieuw-*_Amsterdam'? With its _Brede Weg_ (Broadway) and its _Konijneneiland (_Coney Island)?

But I agree with you. If you go back far enough, no people live on the place it originally came from. (The Europians came from Russia/Africa/Asia, the Americans from Asia/Europe, Everybody from Africa?) So maybe only the Africans then? 

I understand you TimeHP, but I think it's simply something too complicated. The locals of now are very likely to be invaders too of the locals before them. Who knows if they have already 'abused' their geographical names?


----------



## Girl Of Ipanema

And what about the "portuguezation" or "spanization" of towns ? Like the incredible "onquitongui" I saw once on a Portuguese newspaper about 15 years ago, which I had to read 5 times aloud to understand they were talking about "hong-kong" ? And "uaxinguetoni" that I saw w/ my own eyes here in Brazil, standing for "washington" (actually, this is the name of a person...they love to give names like Roosevelt, Marylin Monroe, etc...written in the most hidious ways !!????)


----------



## tafanari

optimistique said:
			
		

> You mean '_*Nieuw-*_Amsterdam'? With its _Brede Weg_ (Broadway) and its _Konijneneiland (_Coney Island)?



Oops! But yeah. The housing projects I live is are called *Breukelen* Housing Projects which is named after the original Dutch name for the place where I live. I understand there is a town somewhere else with that name. There are reminders everywhere in NYC of our Dutch past and the flag of the city has orange in it because of the Dutch.



			
				optimistique said:
			
		

> I understand you TimeHP, but I think it's simply something too complicated. The locals of now are very likely to be invaders too of the locals before them. Who knows if they have already 'abused' their geographical names?



In this case, the Bantu name is also "foreign." Zimbabwe comes from a ciy that was the capital of the Mwanamutapa Empire. But the Bantu have only been in the area for about a thousand years. Before that the Khosian people were there (now a minority in Zimbabwe). These "natives" are very different, culturally, lingustically, and genetically from the Africans that populate Zimbabwe today.


The way I see it, the Shona people are no more native than anybody else.


----------



## Brioche

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Here I am!  Actually, (I fail to see, however, how "Peking" is simply a bad transliteration of "Beijing").


 It isn't. Peking comes from the southern Chinese pronunciation of "North Capital". Europeans make contact first in the south of China.

How should we pronounce Hong Kong?
Hong Kong is pretty close to the local pronunciation of "Fragrant Harbor", but in "North Capital" they say _Xiang Gang_. Which is correct? Should the Beijingers pronounce "Fragrant Harbor" in the Cantonese way?



> Wouldn't it improve cross-cultural communication if everyone called Germany by the name "Deutchland", for example?


Well, some people _cannot_ pronounce _Doichlant_ as the Germans do.
Using the Chinese as an example: the Chinese sound system makes it impossible. A Mandarin Chinese syllable can end only in a vowel, n or ng, and there is no /oi/ sound.
Once the word has been passed though the Chinese sound system, it's extremely unlikely that Germans would recognise their country's name.
Plus I'm sure that the Chinese will stick with _De Guo_ as the country's name.
And France will say _Fa Guo_, and Russia _E Guo._



> And people shouldn't worry about bending over backwards to pronounce a place-name just as the locals pronounce it. If English-speakers pronounce "France" with a short "a" instead of a long "ah", we should be excused; and we should also be forgiven if we mangle the pronunciation of more complicated place names.


It's neither a _long a_, nor _short a_, it's a _nasal a._
Unless the pronuciation is_ very, very_ close to the original language, there's really not much point in merely spelling it correctly.


----------



## TimeHP

I tried to explain that I'm referring to those countries that have been recently colonized (I'm not speaking of roman and gallic invasions...). 

It seems the most of you think it's ineluctable that the names of geographical places undergo a change. 
And it's fatal that 'the last colonizer in town' decides to give the name of her wife to the nice river or that of his dog to the beautiful lake.
You're probably right. 

But The United Nation have created a Group of Experts of Geographical names who have also the task of promoting names used by indigenous and
minority groups, geographical names as cultural heritage, liaison
with user groups and so on...

Just to give you some other examples:
1. 
The Republic of Korea has asked to the United Nations to notice the wrongfulness of the reference to the sea between Korea and Japan as 'Sea of Japan' and has asked to change the name in 'East Sea', declaring that 'Sea of Japan' has never been recognized at any international conference or by any international convention.   
2.
Maybe you've heard about 'Indian renaming controversy'. I don't know a lot about it, but if I'm not wrong it's related to an effort for renaming towns and other geographical places to regional or pan-Indian names. 

Yes, they're just names. 
But a toponym is a piece of the culture of a country.
Anf for people who were subjected and deprived of much, it can be much more that a simple word.

Many thanks.
Ciao


----------



## fenixpollo

In this forum, I have occasionally I have argued in favor of changing place names to reflect more accurately the native language of the inhabitants of that place. I have been surprised that I am always an absolute minority. I always thought that language aficionados would be in favor of being correct.

I see the names for places like Japan as incorrect. The Japanese don't call their country Japan; they call it something else. In order to be authentic, honest and respectful, we should use their name for their place, not our name for it.

Of course it isn't cut and dried. Of course every situation is not black and white, but is charged with politics of race, ethnicity, culture, politics, etc...  But where it's possible, on a case-by-case basis, changes should be made.

As Time says above, there's no such thing as "just a name".


----------



## french4beth

I agree, fenixpollo - and I couldn't have said it better!


----------



## robbie_SWE

Sorry Fenixpollo, but I can't agree with you! 

I would never in my whole life be able to say this (it's a very big city located in Asia and it is visited by millions of tourists every year):

*Krung Thep Maha Nakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayutthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udom Ratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Phiman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanu Kamprasit*

This is the name given by its natives. Go check it out! Can you guess what city this is?? 

Respectfully,

 robbie


----------



## Brioche

It's Bangkok, of course.


----------



## robbie_SWE

But would you ever say its original name Brioche, instead of Bangkok??


----------



## french4beth

From wikipedia:


> Bangkok, known in Thai as *Krung Thep* ... Bangkok began as a small trading center and port community, called _Bang Makok_ ("place of olive plums")... Rama I built his palace on the east bank in 1782 and renamed his city Krung Thep, meaning the "City of Angels". The name Bangkok now refers only to an old district on the Thonburi side of the river, but continues to be used to refer to the entire city by most foreigners... as _Krung Thep_, or *Krung Thep Maha Nakhon*


 _Bang Makok_ isn't that far off from the name Bangkok!  
And from the same source - the meaning of the entire name:
"





> The city of angels, the great city, the eternal jewel city, the impregnable city of God Indra, the grand capital of the world endowed with nine precious gems, the happy city, abounding in an enormous Royal Palace that resembles the heavenly abode where reigns the reincarnated god, a city given by Indra and built by Vishnukam." Local school children are taught the full name, although _few can explain its meaning_ because _many of the words are archaic_.


 If the natives can't even explain it...


----------



## maxiogee

robbie_SWE said:
			
		

> But would you ever say its original name Brioche, instead of Bangkok??



Do the locals?
My wife is from close to Tubbercurry in Co. Sligo - it's only eleven letters long and yet it's known to most up there as Tubber, and that's probably only because there is a nearby town of Curry, or they'd have used it!


----------



## Brioche

They can't spell, either. It's only 10 letters!

The official spelling on maps is Tobercurry - probably to make it closer to the Gaelic name _Tober an Choire_ = the well of the cauldron.


----------



## maxiogee

Maps schmaps  there are several spellings of the name - tubercurry, tobercurry, tobbercurry, tubbercurry - to be found in various places — books, maps, roadsigns, shop names, etc.


----------



## tafanari

TimeHP said:
			
		

> I tried to explain that I'm referring to those countries that have been recently colonized (I'm not speaking of roman and gallic invasions...).


Okay, but when do we start? Columbus arrived on the islands where my parents are from in the 15th century? Is that too far back or should we start calling Puerto Rico "Boriquen" and the Dominican Republic "Quisqueya."

Let's say that we did. I think there are three problems:

1) These "indigenous" names are not that indigenous. The Tainos colonized these islands and wiped out the Ciboney culture that they found.

2) There is much controversy surronding these terms. Some claim the island of Hispañola was actually  called "Haiti." How will Dominicans like it if we refer to the entire island by that name especially since many feel Haiti (who once ruled the entire island) still believe the whole island is "their" Haiti?
And that's just one island. There is disagreement about the other islands as well.

3) Dominicans are not going to call themselves Quisqueyanos officially so why should we?


It seems like in most cases, it's much too much trouble for something that is basically symbolic. Mormons don't like to be called Mormons but that's how we know them. Let them say they are LDS, that's tolerance, but let us call them Mormons, that's tolerance too. You want to do a kind gesture for a Morm...err..LDS? Invite some of those poor kids on their mission in for some jello on a hot summer day. You care about the natives in Nepal? There are many charity accepting donations right now.


----------



## optimistique

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I see the names for places like Japan as incorrect. The Japanese don't call their country Japan; they call it something else. In order to be authentic, honest and respectful, we should use their name for their place, not our name for it.



You call people from the Netherlands "Dutch" and we speak "Dutch" in English. The direct equivalent for Dutch in Dutch means German (Dutch -> Duits = German,  Dutchman -> Duitser = German)  .
If you really stand for what you say, you could start by calling us "Netherlanders" who speak "Netherlandic/-ish" just like we call it ourselves, and you could call Germany 'Dutchland' and German 'Dutch'. It doesn't bother me at all that you call it the way you call it, but one would have to be consistent.

And don't Japanese call their country 'Nippon'? Wasn't that the name the Chinese gave it? Likewise, I don't think that Japanese are really bothered we call them that. 

And for minorities recognition by the local governments and dominant culture is much more important than the name some people on the other side of the globe have for them and their land.


----------



## Frank06

Optimistique, all,


			
				optimistique said:
			
		

> You call people from the Netherlands "Dutch" and we speak "Dutch" in English. The direct equivalent for Dutch in Dutch means German (Dutch -> Duits = German,  Dutchman -> Duitser = German)  .


I'm sorry, but I have to partially diasgree here. English 'Dutch' is indeed a messy term, but it originated from the name of the languages spoken by the modern day Dutch, the (West) Flemish and modern day northern Germans traders, who all called their language 'duutsch', 'duytsch', 'diets', 'duits', 'deutsch' (and countless other variants). So it's not a mere equivalent of 'deutsch', German. We'll have to live with this remnant of the past, which indeed _now_ is a major anachronism.
The main problem is that at the moment the English started to use 'Dutch', Germany (Deutschland, they could have picked Allemania or something ;-)), The Netherlands (Nederland) didn't even exist as nations. 



> If you really stand for what you say, you could start by calling us "Netherlanders" who speak "Netherlandic/-ish" just like we call it ourselves, and you could call Germany 'Dutchland' and German 'Dutch'.


That would be very clarifying, and evade a lot of problems.

Frank


----------



## Brioche

In the Dutch National Anthem, Wilhelm of Nassau is Dutch/Deutsch.

Wilhelmus van Nassouwe ben ick van_ *Duytschen*_Bloedt,


----------



## Frank06

Hi, 


			
				Brioche said:
			
		

> In the Dutch National Anthem, Wilhelm of Nassau is Dutch/Deutsch.
> Wilhelmus van Nassouwe ben ick van_ *Duytschen*_Bloedt,


Maybe this requires a new thread (?).

Whatever 'Duytsch' meant -- and it could mean a lot of things -- the equation Dutch = deutsch isn't a 100% correct. It involves quite some problems. The line quoted above is explained in several ways [cf. the (Dutch) Wikipedia article on 'diets'].

Some problems:
1. Wilhelm Van Nassau _was_ born in what is *now* called _Deutschland _(Germany), but Germany as such didn't exist then.
2. 'Duytsch' (and countless variants) was used in the first place to refer to the 'common' _language_, the language of the people, in what is now Germany (esp. the northern parts) but also in the Low Lands, the (historic) Northern and Southern Netherlands. Though in this same period it indeed was sometimes also used to denote a place/region.
A more precise description of 'duytsch' would be 'Continental West German_*ic*_, as spoken in modern days Germany, The Netherlands, Flanders, etc.'.
3. In the 16th century, following three names could refer to the same language, Dutch: _Nederlands_ (and variants), _Duytsch_ (and variants), and _Nederduytsch_ (and variants).
[Cf. Wikipedia on 'Nederlands (naam)' -- sorry, I still cannot post links.]
The translation of the 1586 Statenbijbel (the official Bible translation) starts with "_tot de oversettinge van den Bibel wte Hebreeuwsche in onse *gemeene Duytse sprake*_", (lit. "[...]the translation of the Bible from Hebrew in our common 'Dutch' language"), which was definitely not German .

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ireney

Ok, how about calling Greeks "Hellenes" or, better yet, since the 'h' sound has been dropped from in front of this word (and many others) for centuries, "Ellines"?    

Or, since this will undoubtly cause some trouble (with the singular having to be "Hellen" or "Ellinas", at least calling Greece, Yunanistan, Grecia, Yunan "Hellas" or "Ellas" or "Ellada"?  That is, if we promise to stop calling France Gallia and French Galli ?

(in case it's not obvious I am joking. Sure, it was a nice surprise when a friend told me the Norwegians call Greece "Hellas" but I couldn't care less if the others don't).


P.S. As for Beijing, I was referring to the Wade-Giles Romanisation(?) of the Chinese language which is, of course, rather inaccurate


----------



## maxiogee

If we return to what the original residents named their surroundings would we not just end up with a lot of places called (in different languages ,of course) "the town", "the hill", "the lake" etc? We are aready have the tautologous River Avon in several places, and there's also Benmore, again tautologous, and there are numerous Fordhams around.

Oh, and I mustn't forget "the other lake"


----------



## fenixpollo

optimistique said:
			
		

> And don't Japanese call their country 'Nippon'? Wasn't that the name the Chinese gave it? Likewise, I don't think that Japanese are really bothered we call them that.





			
				tafanari said:
			
		

> It seems like in most cases, it's much too much trouble for something that is basically symbolic. Mormons don't like to be called Mormons but that's how we know them. Let them say they are LDS, that's tolerance, but let us call them Mormons, that's tolerance too.


 So, "it's no big deal" and "they don't mind" -- or if they mind, it's no big deal to us.  Well, Optemistic and Taffanaire, please don't be offended if I change the spelling and/or pronunciation of your names. If someone mispronounces your name, don't you correct them? Isn't your spelling/pronunciation the correct one for you? In this sense, there's no difference between peoples' names and place names.

Maxiogee is right about the simplicity of place names, and of course all of you who are bringing up the politics of names in places like Haiti and "America" are totally correct that this re-naming task is problematic. However, just because it's difficult, doesn't make it less noble to want to understand another group, to increase awareness of and acceptance of that group (not just tolerance... _acceptance_).


----------



## Vanda

Oba! So I 'll start calling  Brasil by its "real" name *Pindorama*, the name the indians called it. Pindorama - land of the palms.


----------



## ireney

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> So, "it's no big deal" and "they don't mind" -- or if they mind, it's no big deal to us.  Well, Optemistic and Taffanaire, please don't be offended if I change the spelling and/or pronunciation of your names. If someone mispronounces your name, don't you correct them? Isn't your spelling/pronunciation the correct one for you? In this sense, there's no difference between peoples' names and place names.




In this case, since pronounciation is to be accurate too
a) I am in deep trouble with the Chinese and Portuguese names since I have tried to pronounce both languages correctly and fail miserably. I bet I'll have trouble with others too

b) I shouldn't try to pronounce names of places in languages I don't know.

c) do I have to pronounce the name of places in Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, USA with the  pronounciation used in the region the place is? 

d) you should all call Greece "Ellada" with d sounding as the spanish d or the English th in the 

e) about spelling: There's no "sh" sound in Greek. We always transcribe it with sigma wich sounds like s in Sardinia. How do we get over that obstacle? It makes accurate pronounciation impossible too.


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:
			
		

> In this case
> <snip>
> I am in deep trouble with
> <snip>
> the name of places in Ireland


A sincere attempt will never be criticised, and will be appreciated.


----------



## ireney

Heh! Maxiogee I was exaggerating trying to make a point. I wish I had a decent English accent no matter what region of whichever country it belonged to anyway! (although I am partial to some and find others ... less attractive).

P.S. There _is_ a word I can safely say I will never be able to pronounce properly: 
llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch 

(it's one word, but for some reason the gogogoch seem to appear separate on this post)


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:
			
		

> (it's one word, but for some reason the gogogoch seem to appear separate on this post)



That's because there seems to be a limit to how long a "word" (actually a character string) which the forum will recognise without splitting.

...........................................................................................
That line is one continuous string of ...........................................................................................

The limit seems to be fifty.


----------



## fenixpollo

ireney said:
			
		

> In this case, since pronounciation is to be accurate too
> a) I am in deep trouble with the Chinese and Portuguese names since I have tried to pronounce both languages correctly and fail miserably. I bet I'll have trouble with others too
> 
> b) I shouldn't try to pronounce names of places in languages I don't know.
> 
> c) do I have to pronounce the name of places in Great Britain, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, USA with the pronounciation used in the region the place is?
> 
> d) you should all call Greece "Ellada" with d sounding as the spanish d or the English th in the
> 
> e) about spelling: There's no "sh" sound in Greek. We always transcribe it with sigma wich sounds like s in Sardinia. How do we get over that obstacle? It makes accurate pronounciation impossible too.


 Well, Miss Exaggeration-to-prove-a-point, look at my first post: 





			
				fenixpollo in post #33 said:
			
		

> And people shouldn't worry about bending over backwards to pronounce a place-name just as the locals pronounce it. If English-speakers pronounce "France" with a nasal (thanks, Brioche) "a" instead of a long "ah", we should be excused; and we should also be forgiven if we mangle the pronunciation of more complicated place names.
> 
> Parangaricutirimícuaro, anyone?


 I'll forgive anyone who *tries* to pronounce fenixpollo correctly (FEH-neeks-PO-yo). Even if you mangle it, I'm honored that you'd try. I would also excuse another language's misspelling of it, because if your language doesn't have the "ll = y" sound like Spanish does, and you spell it fenixpoyo.... that's close enough.

Remember, what is important is not your execution, but the respect that you give me by attempting to use my name as I use it, rather than calling me Phoenixchicken or something totally different.


----------



## maxiogee

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> rather than calling me Phoenixchicken or something totally different.



So I need to apologise for the jocular "fiery chicken" of the other day, then.

Sorry.


----------



## fenixpollo

Now you're getting the wrong impression... I am committed to my ideas about place names, but I'm by no means a name nazi.   Please please have fun with my name, and the name of the place I'm from, and other place names. Sarcasm, irony, wordplay and fun are definitely welcome at the chicken coop.


----------



## tafanari

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Well, Optemistic and Taffanaire, please don't be offended if I change the spelling and/or pronunciation of your names. If someone mispronounces your name, don't you correct them? Isn't your spelling/pronunciation the correct one for you?



The answer to all of those questions for me is no. My name is Edwin and I have people who call me "Ed", "Eddie", "Edward" and I even had a friend who would always call me "Erwing."

My brother and two uncles have never called me anything but "Edward." I don't correct them. I know who they are talking to when they address me as "Edward." That's me to them.

A handle like Tafanari is often misspelled and I have done so myself. In fact, my email address is a misspelled variant of "Tafanari." Again, it doesn't matter. I have the password and I read the messages. No big deal.


----------



## ireney

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Well, Miss Exaggeration-to-prove-a-point, look at my first post:  I'll forgive anyone who *tries* to pronounce fenixpollo correctly (FEH-neeks-PO-yo). Even if you mangle it, I'm honored that you'd try. I would also excuse another language's misspelling of it, because if your language doesn't have the "ll = y" sound like Spanish does, and you spell it fenixpoyo.... that's close enough.
> 
> Remember, what is important is not your execution, but the respect that you give me by attempting to use my name as I use it, rather than calling me Phoenixchicken or something totally different.





In this case however you do contradict yourself in



			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> So, "it's no big deal" and "they don't mind" -- or if they mind, it's no big deal to us.  Well, Optemistic and Taffanaire, please don't be offended if I change the spelling and/or pronunciation of your names. If someone mispronounces your name, don't you correct them? Isn't your spelling/pronunciation the correct one for you? In this sense, there's no difference between peoples' names and place names.




Calling me Ilene i.e. is something much more than just mispronouncing Irini (all _I_s as in ink). Not pronouncing all _I_s as in ink is mispronunciation and I would never correct anyone doing that, nor do I mind being called Irene, Irina, Irena or other equivalent of my name even if the transcribing of the original Greek name produced equivalents which are inaccurate even using ancient Greek pronounciation.

P.S. I also don't mind being called Miss Exaggeration-to-prove-a-point since this is a rather accurate description of me! I'd say half my acquaintances and all of my friends and family would understand who you're talking about


----------



## fenixpollo

ireney said:
			
		

> In this case however you do contradict yourself...


 In a way, but the distinction is in the intent. If I purposefully don't make an attempt, or if I pronounce/spell your name in whatever way I like, then it shows a lack of interest/respect for you on my part. If, however, I make an attempt, then it's OK if I misspell or mispronounce it.

So, your name is _not_ pronounced eye-REE-nee?


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:
			
		

> P.S. I also don't mind being called Miss Exaggeration-to-prove-a-point since this is a rather accurate description of me! I'd say half my acquaintances and all of my friends and family would understand who you're talking about



Isn't this the whole point?

We use names - personal and geographic - so that the people we are talking to will instantly identify who or where we speak of.
It would have been no use my referring to Beijing by that name to my late father in his latter years, he wouldn't have understood me. Nor would he have known what I meant if I said Uluru, but he'd have instantly recognised Peking and Ayer's Rock.

My wife and my late mother used to play a little game  My wife only called me Tony and my mother only called me Anthony. After about 17 years of marriage (and after about 30 years since I adopted the name Tony) my mother finally began to toy with the notion of accepting the change - but she never used that name to me. It irritated her no end when another of her nieces and nephews came over to the Tony camp! "But I christened him Anthony!" she would fume! It didn't matter - they all knew who they were talking about.


----------



## ireney

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> So, your name is _not_ pronounced eye-REE-nee?



Dear God! That sounds a bit like a siren doesn't it? No, eyes, ears and noses have nothing to do with how my name 'should' be pronounced but on the other hand it's better than when an English professor who had studied ancient Greek insisted on calling me Eirene -last two _ E_s as in elephant -(which always made me want to reply "infomally known as Irelandne")


----------



## optimistique

Frank06 said:
			
		

> Optimistique, all,
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have to partially diasgree here. English 'Dutch' is indeed a messy term, but it originated from the name of the languages spoken by the modern day Dutch, the (West) Flemish and modern day northern Germans traders, who all called their language 'duutsch', 'duytsch', 'diets', 'duits', 'deutsch' (and countless other variants). So it's not a mere equivalent of 'deutsch', German. We'll have to live with this remnant of the past, which indeed _now_ is a major anachronism.
> The main problem is that at the moment the English started to use 'Dutch', Germany (Deutschland, they could have picked Allemania or something ;-)), The Netherlands (Nederland) didn't even exist as nations.



I'm sorry, bad example. I didn't think that through very well, but I hope I still made my point clear. As long as people don't say I'm from Holland, everything's fine.


----------



## optimistique

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> So, "it's no big deal" and "they don't mind" -- or if they mind, it's no big deal to us.  Well, Optemistic and Taffanaire, please don't be offended if I change the spelling and/or pronunciation of your names. If someone mispronounces your name, don't you correct them? Isn't your spelling/pronunciation the correct one for you? *In this sense, there's no difference between peoples' names and place names.*



But there is! In this case you seem to have changed the pronunciation of my name while communicating to me. I have all the right to correct you on that. However, in the case of the place names, we are talking _about _them, but not to the people from that place, if you know what I mean. If you adjust the name of the locals when you communicate directly to them, then I say 'yes! out of respect for these people their names', but when we're talking about an Indian village far far away with a for us unpronouncable name and they will never know we have been talking about them, then I say 'No need, and just use our own name for it.' 

I hope I have been understandable in what I'm trying to say.


----------



## Frank06

optimistique said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, bad example. I didn't think that through very well, but I hope I still made my point clear. As long as people don't say I'm from Holland, everything's fine.


LOL.
But well, a lot of people do. Even when the Orange clad football supporters go to the stadium, they don't shout "Hup Nederland Hup", but "Hup Holland Hup". Nice aliteration, but also pretty weird.

Anyway, I understood your point completely .

Take good care,

frank


----------



## Victoria32

Tsoman said:
			
		

> plus there must have been a hundreds languages on the continent at that time. What language should the name come from?


 
This is an issue in New Zealand, the Maori name for the country, Aotearoa, was not used by the pre-colonial Maori, and there was not general agreement about what tribe should have naming rights for the whole country!

The Maori language white people learn, is apparently that of one tribe. At Intermediate school (10-11 years old), we were taught pronunciation by a woman from one tribe (Ngati Whakaue) and then years later, my son's father-in-law corrected by pronunciation - he's from a Northland tribe. Confusing!


----------



## ireney

optimistique said:
			
		

> But there is! In this case you seem to have changed the pronunciation of my name while communicating to me. I have all the right to correct you on that. However, in the case of the place names, we are talking _about _them, but not to the people from that place, if you know what I mean. If you adjust the name of the locals when you communicate directly to them, then I say 'yes! out of respect for these people their names', but when we're talking about an Indian village far far away with a for us unpronouncable name and they will never know we have been talking about them, then I say 'No need, and just use our own name for it.'
> 
> I hope I have been understandable in what I'm trying to say.




I'm sorry, I don't think I get it: To use my country as an example yet again for another time once more, do you mean you should call us Hellenes when you talk to Greeks and Greeks if no Greek can hear you?

In addition to this I fail to see how you show respect if you call someone one thing when he/she hears you and another thing when he/she can't.


----------



## fenixpollo

optimistique said:
			
		

> If you adjust the name of the locals when you communicate directly to them, then I say 'yes! out of respect for these people their names', but when we're talking about an Indian village far far away with a for us unpronouncable name and they will never know we have been talking about them, then I say 'No need, and just use our own name for it.'
> 
> I hope I have been understandable in what I'm trying to say.


Yes, but I think that if one has respect for others and one also has integrity, then one will talk *about* them in the same way as if one were talking *to* them.


----------



## tafanari

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Yes, but I think that if one has respect for others and one also has integrity, then one will talk *about* them in the same way as if one were talking *to* them.



The French refer to *Santo Domingo* as *Saint-Domingue*. People in the US generally just say *Santo Domingo* instead of *Saint Dominic*. But I fail to see how the French are disrespectful or how the US is being more respectful (or have more intergrity) because of how they say that word. Dominicans call their country *Francia *and in the US it's *France*. I don't think the French should feel less respected by the Domincan way either. Different people just do things differently. They say *Saint-Domingue*, we say *Francia*, let's call the whole thing off!


----------



## Pivra

french4beth said:
			
		

> From wikipedia:
> _Bang Makok_ isn't that far off from the name Bangkok!
> And from the same source - the meaning of the entire name:
> " If the natives can't even explain it...


 
Well, Bang Makok isnt that far off from the name BKK but,... in Chinese.. its Man Gu... and I cant see any relation with the name Bang Makok or Bangkok, thats why I said from the begining that if changing names is wrong then we should ban Chinese.

 Lots of uneducated or Chinese descendant native speakers can't because, they are what they are (people from other regions out side central Thailand cannot explain it too because they speak other "dialects" (according to Wikipedia, ie. according to us- languages). They are not wrong. But they annoy me.


----------



## Outsider

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> In this forum, I have occasionally I have argued in favor of changing place names to reflect more accurately the native language of the inhabitants of that place. I have been surprised that I am always an absolute minority. I always thought that language aficionados would be in favor of being correct.


I sympathize with your concern for accuracy (and for native's feelings), but, after reflecting on this matter, I have come to have a different point of view. I prefer to treat foreign proper nouns according to a hierarchy:

- Translate everything the size of an independent nation, or larger, and keep everything smaller -- including people's names -- as close to the original as possible. When we want to talk about foreign nations, we _need_ to have names for them in our own language. It wouldn't be practical otherwise. And, if our names turn out to be a little different from the original ones, or even very different, so what? It won't hurt the natives in any way, since only we are going to use those names.

- It's not practical to follow the above principle in all instances, however. For historical reasons, the names of some rivers, regions, cities, and people have been translated, and their translation is how they are commonly known. I don't suppose you usually call Rome 'Roma', or Moscow 'Moskva', or pronounce Julius Caesar as "Yulius Kaissar" (with a rolled R, please!) These cases should be accepted as exceptions.

A word on the transliteration of words from other writing systems. The name 'Beijing' was mentioned previously. It's common knowledge that this transliteration is more accurate than the older Peking, but I think that's arguable. 'Beijing' is the transliteration according to the _pinyin_ system; in this system of romanization, the letter B does not stand for the same sound as it does in English. The actual sound is an unaspirated [p]; so, in many languages (such as mine) 'P' would actually be a better transliteration for it. However, since initial [p] is aspirated in _English_, and _pinyin_ is partly based on the phonology of English, and an unaspirated [p] can sound kind of like a [b] to English ears, the Chinese decided to transcribe [p] with a B. Puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

And when you pronounce "Beijing" in the English way, you are _not_ pronouncing the J as the Chinese do. The actual sound is neither [k] nor [dj]. It's an affricate that does not exist in English. So you will _never_ pronounce it "right", unless you take the time to learn some Chinese. The new spelling brings you only a bit closer to the actual sound.



			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I see the names for places like Japan as incorrect. The Japanese don't call their country Japan; they call it something else. In order to be authentic, honest and respectful, we should use their name for their place, not our name for it.


I don't see why I should have to use Japanese names when I am not speaking Japanese. I'm pretty sure the Japanese don't say 'Portugal' the way we do, in their language, but I don't see that as 'unauthentic, dishonest, or disrespectful'. They just speak a different language!


----------



## Brioche

Outsider said:
			
		

> I don't see why I should have to use Japanese names when I am not speaking Japanese. I'm pretty sure the Japanese don't say 'Portugal' the way we do, in their language, but I don't see that as 'unauthentic, dishonest, or disrespectful'. They just speak a different language!


 
The Japanese call Portugal _Porutugaru._

Which is closer than their name for Australia _Goushuu._

Apopos Beijing, you forgot to mention using the correct tones!


----------



## Fernando

Outsider said:
			
		

> The name 'Beijing' was mentioned previously. It's common knowledge that this transliteration is more accurate than the older Peking, but I think that's arguable. 'Beijing' is the transliteration according to the _pinyin_ system;



(Not totally? off-topic) I fully agree with Outsider.

The Chinese names in Spanish are taken from "ear" transliteration of Spanish and Portuguese sailors and missionaires. Apart from Formosa (Taiwan) and Ceilán (Sri Lanka) the names are pretty accurate. Pinyin transliteration is often confusing (Beijing/Pekín and Guanzhou/Cantón are good examples).


----------



## ireney

Err.. since I brought the Peking/Beijing name up, I think I should clarify that I meant that Beijing is _closer_ to the "correct" pronounciation of the name than Peking.

My point was that although I agree that such changes should be made when possible, I don't think it's necessary for us to change the way we call Beijing (Pekino in Greek) just as I don't mind their callin Greece 希腊 (Xila) which has little to do with how we call our country. It has however more to do than 'Greece' and that is nice but I don't think 'Greece' _must_ be changed either .

Hope that sums up my opinion well.


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:
			
		

> The Japanese call Portugal _Porutugaru._
> 
> Which is closer than their name for Australia _Goushuu._



Surely the Japanese name predates "Australia" — they must have known of it's existence long ago. 

Can anyone confirm when the Japanese 'discovered' Australia?


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Surely the Japanese name predates "Australia" — they must have known of it's existence long ago.
> 
> Can anyone confirm when the Japanese 'discovered' Australia?


I'm curious about the answer to this question. As far as I know, Australia remained in isolation throughout most of its history...


----------



## fenixpollo

I agree with everything you said, Outsider, except the middle part:





			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> It's not practical to follow the above principle in all instances, however. For historical reasons, the names of some rivers, regions, cities, and people have been translated, and their translation is how they are commonly known. I don't suppose you usually call Rome 'Roma', or Moscow 'Moskva', or pronounce Julius Caesar as "Yulius Kaissar" (with a rolled R, please!) These cases should be accepted as exceptions.


 I don't think that these should be exceptions to the first rule. If we continue to do something because "we've always done it that way", then we ignore better ways of doing things. 





			
				me said:
			
		

> In this forum, I have occasionally I have argued in favor of changing place names to reflect more accurately the native language of the inhabitants of that place. I have been surprised that I am always an absolute minority. I always thought that language aficionados would be in favor of being correct.


 Outsider, you may remember this related discussion: pronunciation of foreign city names. All others... Enjoy!


----------



## Outsider

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I agree with everything you said, Outsider, except the middle part:
> 
> [...]
> 
> I don't think that these should be exceptions to the first rule. If we continue to do something because "we've always done it that way", then we ignore better ways of doing things.


I would settle for a compromise. Some names are easier to change, either because they are less frequently used (Bombay --> Mumbai), or because their translated version was already very close to the original (Ontário --> Ontario, in Portuguese). But I do think that in some cases it's a losing battle. Can you really see English speakers starting to say "Moskva" instead of "Moscow"...?


----------



## fenixpollo

Outsider said:
			
		

> Can you really see English speakers starting to say "Moskva" instead of "Moscow"...?


 You have to remember that I live in a country that refuses to adopt the metric system.  So... no, I can't imagine.


----------



## Outsider

Well, we have adopted the metric system, but I don't see us switching from "Moscovo" to "Moskva", either.


----------



## beclija

It should be "Maskva", that's how Russian pronounces it. And, I suppose, "in Maskvye", using the locative *g*.

Or how are you going to deal with i.e. rivers? "The Donau/Duna(j/v/rea) is 2.845 kms long" - seriously? (and that is only using the native languages of the languages along it's shores.) As someone who says Donau, I'd prefer you to stick to "Danube", even though all of the names are fairly easily pronouncable to English speaker (DOH-now, DOO-neye, DOO-nah, DOO-nav, and doo-NUH-ray-ah if I'm right). I suppose by your logic each of the names should be "abusive" for the majority of "natives" - a clear case of over-sensitivity.

Oberpullendorf/Gornja Pulja/Felsőpulya in the Austrian Burgenland/Felsőőrvidék/Gradišće is predominantly German with a significant Hungarian minority, while Unterpullendorf/Dolnja Pulja/Alsópulya is mostly Croatian. That gives you something like:

"Dolnja Pulja is a village in Gradišće, next to the town of Oberpullendorf (Burgenland)" (?).

So very often it's simply not practical or even possible. And I don't get offended if you call my country Austria, nor do I expect you to know how to pronounce Österreich. 
greetings from Wien/Beč/Беч/Becs/Dunaj/Vienna/Вена/Vienne/Víden'/Wiedeń


----------



## Outsider

beclija said:


> It should be "Maskva", that's how Russian pronounces it.


But they spell it Moskva. Another difficulty...


----------



## Lugubert

Some years ago, some groups in Sweden insisted that Cambodia should have its Swedish name changed from Kambodja to Kampuchea. I wasn't impressed, and used arguments already presented in this thread: we have an established name for it, and Swedish can't be dictated by foreigners, and how do they pronounce Sweden?

After very few years, the debate ended and we're back with Kambodja.

I'm not consistent, though. In conversations with Swedes, I try to use the "old" names of the major Indian cities, like Madras instead of the "new" Chennai, especially if I have reason to belive that the other persons don't know of the change. I haven't made up my mind on Rangoon/Yangon, but have gotten the impression that Myanmar is as close to the indigenous pronunciation (bamma? myamma? either?) as Burma or (German) Birma.


----------



## moicestjoe

Aujourd'hui j'ai lu un article assez intéressant dans The Economist et je pensais que le sujet serait bien de discuter dans ce forum.....

Actuellement, dans le monde anglophone il y a un mouvement chez les pays sous-developpés d'insister que l'on les appelle par leurs noms "natifs". Par exemple on ne peut plus dire "Bombay" mais "Mumbai", "Bangalore" est devenu "Bengalooru", et "Ivory Coast" est maintenant pour nous aussi la "Côte d'Ivoire". Pourquoi les francophones (ou bien les germanophones, hispanophones) ne sont-ils pas demandés de faire la même chose? Il y a "Pékin" par exemple; aux Etats-Unis dire "Peking" au lieu de "Beijing" est consideré comme offensif depuis presque 30 ans.

Juste une question de laquelle je pensais on pourrait faire une discussion


----------



## Agnès E.

Offensant ? pourquoi cela ? _Marseille_ s'écrit bien _Marseilles_ en anglais et aucun Français ne se sent insulté par cela...  pourquoi étendre le politiquement correct si loin ? Dans la mesure où il n'y a aucune intention d'insulter, je ne vois pas où est le problème. La transcription de noms de langues extrêmement différentes des nôtres est parfois très complexe. 

Il n'y a aucune raison d'en prendre ombrage, surtout lorsqu'il s'agit de noms en usage depuis des centaines d'années, comme Pékin, Bombay, Le Caire, Cologne, Milan, Genève ou Londres.


----------

