Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!msunews!uchinews!ellis!deb5
From: deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: Pronouncing your name in another language
Message-ID: <1995Jan16.014435.25029@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <3faaim$bit@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <1995Jan15.185659.7786@midway.uchicago.edu> <3fc8bm$q11@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 01:44:35 GMT
Lines: 79

In article <3fc8bm$q11@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Marek1@ix.netcom.com (Marek Konski) writes:

>The title of the original post was "Pronouncing _your_ name in another 
>language" and regarded personal names. You used your example with 
>Copenhagen to support the thesis that the personal names could be 
>translated.

Incorrect.  I used Copenhagen as an example of why, if the commonly-
accepted form of the name of a city (a later poster expanded the
discussion to include names of cities) in the language one is
speaking is different from the name of the city in the language of
the inhabitants, one should prefer the former.  Some posters had
expressed the opposite opinion and I was trying to point out the
kind of confusion they could expect.

For example, if, while speaking English, I were to tell a group of 
people that I was planning to visit [var'shava] some day, some (like 
yourself) would know that I meant the capitol of Poland, but the
rest would be confused.  You can go on about "arrogance and ignorance"
all you like, but the bottom line is that, if one wants to be
understood easily, one has to use common terms.  This holds for
placenames as well as it does for any other term.  If I'm drowning
in Lake Michigan and I yell "Pomoc!" instead of "Help!", I really
can't blame those on shore for not realising the seriousness of 
my predicament.  If I say "Warszawa," "Moskva," and "K0benhavn,"
I can't blame them for not knowing what cities I'm talking about.

> I think that Copehhagen is an easy shot. You could have used 
>as your example some remote village in Denemark. How would your 
>hypothetical foreigner talk about it to a Dane or anybody else?

In this case, the commonly-accepted form is probably identical 
with the native form.  The hypothetical speaker simply has to
take his best crack at the Danish pronunciation.

>I think that a personal name is a _personal_ name and nobody should try 
>to translate Giovanni or Juan to John. In my opinion to translate a name 
>is equivalent to changing it, and only the interested person has the 
>right to do it. As far as pronunciation is concerned, everybody should 
>simply do her best while speaking and (this is also important)  
>_listening_.

One of the original questions that several people here have been
trying to answer is "Do _you_ translate _your_ name when talking
a foreign language?"  No one who's posted has said one should change
someone's name against their will!

>Pronunciation is not the only things that matter. Some first names have 
>their male and female forms. In some languages (I think there are many) 
>also last names have male and female forms. In the English speaking 
>countries married women having this kind of surnames are forced to use 
>their male forms to have them identical to the names of their husbands 
>(unwed adult females can still do whatever they like). 

They are not forced to do this, not in this country. Wives are allowed
to determine the forms of their own last names; an increasing number 
either do not adopt their husbands name or use it in conjection with
their own.  If Mr. Klikov's wife wants to be known as "Klikov'a", no
one will prevent her from doing so.  However, she will have to explain
to a large number of people that this is merely her husband's name 
with a feminine suffix.

>This is based on the assumption that because we do not have female forms 
>of surnames nobody should have them.

There's a difference between what is *allowed* and what is *expected*.
There's no assumption here that there "shouldn't" be female forms of
surnames; there's an assumptiont that they simply don't exist.

>I think that you have gassed something about the language which uses the 
>form KOPENHAGA, because you titled me Mr. instead of Ms.

Had you written "Kopenhaga" originally, I would have guessed the language
was Polish.  But you wrote "Copenhaga" which, as far as I know, is not
the form in any language.
-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
