Comments on: Why Not Magyarorszag And Suomi?

by: Grumpy Old Man

Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:11:58 +0000

You probably know this, but the “!” in “!kung” stands for a click consonant (in the particular case, I think a lateral click). These are found only in the San languages in southern Africa, and in a few Bantu languages, such as Xhosa, which have borrowed them.

English speakers who don’t have an interest in linguistics won’t ever adopt these sounds, any more than they will adopt Chinese or Vietnamese tones, or the Japanese will adopt Western consonant clusters (hence “Sutarin” for “Stalin” etc.). For that matter, we won’t be saying “Paris” with a uvular “r” any time soon, either.

Thus, even if we try to cater to the ephemeral whims of nationalists, which we should do at least when the old names have pejorative import, we will at best come up with imperfect, Anglophone versions of their “correct” designations.

by: Daniel Larison

Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:22:29 +0000

I take your points. For that matter, we don’t oblige the Chavistas by calling it the “Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.” I am willing to grant the point about English-speakers using the established names in our language. Even so, if we’re not going to use the indigenous names, I would insist that everyone acknowledge that it is really a matter of using the established English names and not an expression of our resistance to a foreign government.

However, some of Derbyshire’s points about ethnic and tribal names seem less persuasive to me. For instance, someone may refer to Hungarians as Magyars, as well they might, and I don’t see why this should be seen as an imposition on the English-speaking listener. And if using Magyar makes sense, why not Roma? It seems to me to be a reasonable expectation that people should at least *know* the names that people use for themselves and should be able to recognise them, even if we do not routinely use them in our language. Maybe it’s a measure of how preciously multiculti my middle school was, but we learned to call the Bushmen “!Kung Bushmen,” as it is sometimes written, so there’s nothing that strange or absurd for me (except the exclamation point) about using such names.

by: A.K.B. Cusack

Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:40:21 +0000

It seems to me that when there is an established common English-language name for a place it should be left alone.

Why did we shift to calling the capital of China Beijing when the French still get to call it ‘Pekin’?

The official name of a city in southern Vietnam is ‘Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh’, but I would argue that in the English language it should normally be called Saigon because that is the established custom (as with Armenia for Hayastan).

It gets trickier when you’re dealing with English-speaking countries, where names, while they may have origins in other languages (Latin, Dutch, Native American, etc), are, despite those potential origins, honorary members of the English language. If the city fathers of Detroit decided to rename that city ‘Michael Moore City’, would we be obliged to call it such? Even trickier for English-speaking countries like India which have more culturally significant other languages. But I suspect Bombay will always be Bombay, except in the realm of officialdom.

Anyhow, here are John Derbyshire’s thoughts:

http://www.olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Commentary/Ethnonymy.htm

by: Daniel Larison

Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:48:14 +0000

Of course, we can refer to them using the words already in our language. I’m not insisting that everyone has to use these indigenous names. I just find it strange how often we disregard these names. They can ignore them entirely, and I won’t mind a bit, and no one should feel obliged to use them. But to object to the renaming of one particular country because you dislike its government, while paying no mind to all the other examples where the names have been changed, sometimes by disreputable rulers, seems unnecessary and futile.

by: johnsavage

Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:18:16 +0000

I’d say we have to oppose the politically correct insistence on letting others tell us what to call them. You’re right to say that “actively protesting against the official name of a country–when it has as much claim to being a “legitimate” name as its alternative–seems like an odd way to express opposition to a regime,” of course. But we shouldn’t be annoyed at what foreigners call us, and we should call them what we like. It’s our language!