Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!sun4nl!cwi.nl!dik
From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Subject: Re: Anglicizing non-English Name?
Message-ID: <D5IHLn.AIt@cwi.nl>
Sender: news@cwi.nl (The Daily Dross)
Nntp-Posting-Host: boring.cwi.nl
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
References: <3k20me$fng@panix2.panix.com> <3k26h5$a31@agate.berkeley.edu> <D5G6wG.ErE@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 02:29:47 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <D5G6wG.ErE@nntpa.cb.att.com> dww@hogpb.ho.att.com (-D.WILSON) writes:
 > >>>How come we don't use the Italian spelling and pronunciation?
 > >>
 > >>Why should we? We are speaking English, not Italian.
 > >
 > >It's still a legitimate question, and the answer goes back to the
 > >Middle Ages, when the international language for England was French
 > >(even after English had become official in England itself), so that
 > >the _French_ names (sometimes slightly anglicized, as Venice for
 > >Venise) of _important_ cities on the Continent (not only Italy) were
 > >used.....
 > >
 > O.K., but how the heck did we ever get Leghorn for Livorno?
 > 
I have no idea why the English took over the German name for Livorno.

But the subject can be extended: why localizing foreign names?  It is
done all over the world.  In the Netherlands we say "Parijs", "Londen",
"Berlijn", "Kopenhagen", "Lissabon", "Keulen", to name a few.

There are a few different reasons for this.  But note first that it is
only for major cities/lakes/seas, etc. where this holds.

The strangest reason (which does occur) is that the localized name is
closer to the original name than the current foreign name.  One prime
example for this is "Ratisbon" for "Regensburg".  The former is of
Celtic origin (from the times the Celts lived there), so is the older
name and lives on in French.  A second example is "Dunkerque" in France
called "Duinkerken" in Dutch from the time when it was still a Dutch
speaking part (alas, "Kales" for "Calais" has lost, perhaps because
of the closely related pronunciation).

The next reason is that for towns close to a language border translations
are used of the original name, of course only if the original name is
translatable.  An example of this is "Mons" in Belgium, called "Bergen"
by the Dutch speaking people.

Also for towns close to language borders localized versions are used to
make them more pronunciable (actually it is of course the other way around,
the foreign name became a localized version in the course of time).  This
can even take strange forms; if the language border shifts the town will
get at the other side of the border and the (originally localized) name
will become the official name while the original name still stays the
other side of the border.  Many examples of this can be found in Belgium
(the name makes no sense in the language currently spoken in the town
but makes sense in the original language).

And now I come to the last part.  Part of the previous paragraph also
holds for towns with which people have strong (economic) connections.
That is the main reason for the localization of the names of main
foreign cities.  This is also the reason that a few hundred years ago
the Dutch had Dutch names for major English harbour towns.  "Haarwijk",
"Abberdaan", "Poortmuiden", it is quite easy to find the original.

Now if somebody could explain why the German name for "Zagreb" is
"Azram" I am quite satisfied.
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland, +31205924098
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: dik@cwi.nl
