3 ms·

rant: it never was Peking. "Peking" is a phonetic spelling performed by westerners listening to non-mandarin speakers, who weren't from Beijing. If they had lis

rant: it never was Peking. "Peking" is a phonetic spelling performed by westerners listening to non-mandarin speakers, who weren't from Beijing. If they had listened to a mandarin speaker, which most Chinese are, even at that time, we wouldn't have that horribly mis-spelled name.

mikeash 11y ago
While I wouldn't call it misspelled (any Romanization is going to be flawed), I do find it strange that the article says it's "now known as Beijing." The name didn't change, only the spelling changed. It really should say "now spelled as Beijing" or something like that.
- kps 11y ago
  > any Romanization ... Heck, the residents of Rome don't call it ‘Rome’, either.
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  Well, it was known as Peking, and it is now known as Beijing. So I guess that statement is correct, right?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Perhaps correct, but misleading, because it makes it sound like the underlying name changed rather than just how it's spelled. For example, if you were doing a similar series of photos from 1930, you might say the photos were from Beiping, now known as Beijing. That's actually a different name, not just a different spelling.
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  Its name in English changed. Peking was its old name in English and now it is Beijing. The old name wasn't wrong and the new name isn't right. The concept of wrongness or rightness doesn't even make sense in this context. It isn't controversial that the city that the Italians call Roma has an English name of Rome, or that the city the Germans call München has an English name of Munich, but somehow if the English name for 北京 doesn't sound as close as possible to what the locals call it in their own language, that's awful cultural imperialism.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I don't see "Beijing" as an "English name," just a Romanization of the Chinese name. In programming terms, it's a double indirection: Peking/Beijing points to 北京 which points to the actual city. Note that I'm not saying anything about the rightness or wrongness of either name. In fact, I explicitly said that any Romanized version is going to be imperfect. I'm just saying that I think the BBC's wording here implies the something other than what happened.
    - bradleyjg 11y ago
      Are Rome and Munich pointers or English names?
      - mikeash 11y ago
        I'd call Rome an English name. We could easily write/say Roma in our own alphabet, after all, but we choose a different name. Munich, I guess depends on how you count the dots. Basically, it seems to me that there's a difference between using a different name from what the natives use because of some long tradition or linguistic drift ("English name") and using a different name from what the natives use out of necessity because nobody would know how to read it if you used the original.
  - analyst74 11y ago
    The defensive attitude comes from the fact the name Peking was given by imperialists invading China. Thus the name Peking reminds some people of the sad part of history, triggering negative emotions toward it.
    - abritinthebay 11y ago
      That's... not even close to true. Peking is a romanization of how the actual Chinese name was pronounced by actual Chinese people in the port towns that British travelers first encountered. The fact that there are about 200 different dialects which change the pronunciation doesn't make Peking wrong, or "imperialistic" in any way. In fact it is just as correct as Bejing (which is also "wrong" it's just the currently accepted form of romanization that's closer to local dialect sounds).
- intopieces 11y ago
  The name of the place didn't change, but that's not what the article said. The article said that the city was formerly known as "Peking." The same could be said of Mumbai, which was formerly known as "Bombay" but alway referred to as Mumbai by the Speakers of Marathi and Gujarati [0]. The purpose of this statement is to make readers, who may be familiar with both terms, understand that they are the same place, despite having two different names. And I think it's safe to say that a person unfamiliar with the origin of the name would count Peking and Bejing as two different names, since western speakers pronounce them differently. I think saying the spelling changed and not the name itself would be confusing to readers. [0]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/07/mumbai_what_about_bombay.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Mumbai actually got renamed, though. It was previously Bombay, then the name was changed to Mumbai. So yes, the same could be said of Mumbai, because it actually fits. My whole objection is that the phrasing describes a case like Mumbai's, which is not what happened with Beijing. In the case of Beijing, the official name is the same, it's just a question of which romanization you use. Both Beijing and Peking are right, or wrong, and to a roughly similar degree. (I'd argue that English speakers unfamiliar with Chinese will usually produce something slightly more accurate when phonetically reading "Beijing," but it's not a huge difference.) I know the purpose of the statement is to make readers understand that the two spellings refer to the same place. And I agree that a person unfamiliar with the origins would consider the two spellings to be different names. Which is my whole objection: the article encourages people to think this way, when with a simple change in phrasing they could still convey the main point without also encouraging people to think the city got renamed.
tellthetruth 11y ago
Obviously Peking University disagrees with you. http://www.pku.edu.cn/ http://www.pku.edu.cn/ Yes, it is Peking (and Nanking).
slantyyz 11y ago
Depending on the dialect spoken, the phonetic translation is going to be different. For example, my dialect pronounces the city name as "Buck Gen" (hard g). From Wikipedia: An older English spelling, Peking, is the postal romanization of the same two characters as they are pronounced in Chinese dialects spoken in the southern port towns first visited by European traders and missionaries. Those dialects preserve the Middle Chinese pronunciation of 京 as kjaeng, prior to a phonetic shift in the northern dialects to the modern pronunciation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing

mikeash 11y ago

While I wouldn't call it misspelled (any Romanization is going to be flawed), I do find it strange that the article says it's "now known as Beijing." The name didn't change, only the spelling changed. It really should say "now spelled as Beijing" or something like that.

kps 11y ago
> any Romanization ... Heck, the residents of Rome don't call it ‘Rome’, either.
matthewmacleod 11y ago
Well, it was known as Peking, and it is now known as Beijing. So I guess that statement is correct, right?
- mikeash 11y ago
  Perhaps correct, but misleading, because it makes it sound like the underlying name changed rather than just how it's spelled. For example, if you were doing a similar series of photos from 1930, you might say the photos were from Beiping, now known as Beijing. That's actually a different name, not just a different spelling.
bradleyjg 11y ago
Its name in English changed. Peking was its old name in English and now it is Beijing. The old name wasn't wrong and the new name isn't right. The concept of wrongness or rightness doesn't even make sense in this context. It isn't controversial that the city that the Italians call Roma has an English name of Rome, or that the city the Germans call München has an English name of Munich, but somehow if the English name for 北京 doesn't sound as close as possible to what the locals call it in their own language, that's awful cultural imperialism.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I don't see "Beijing" as an "English name," just a Romanization of the Chinese name. In programming terms, it's a double indirection: Peking/Beijing points to 北京 which points to the actual city. Note that I'm not saying anything about the rightness or wrongness of either name. In fact, I explicitly said that any Romanized version is going to be imperfect. I'm just saying that I think the BBC's wording here implies the something other than what happened.
  - bradleyjg 11y ago
    Are Rome and Munich pointers or English names?
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I'd call Rome an English name. We could easily write/say Roma in our own alphabet, after all, but we choose a different name. Munich, I guess depends on how you count the dots. Basically, it seems to me that there's a difference between using a different name from what the natives use because of some long tradition or linguistic drift ("English name") and using a different name from what the natives use out of necessity because nobody would know how to read it if you used the original.
- analyst74 11y ago
  The defensive attitude comes from the fact the name Peking was given by imperialists invading China. Thus the name Peking reminds some people of the sad part of history, triggering negative emotions toward it.
  - abritinthebay 11y ago
    That's... not even close to true. Peking is a romanization of how the actual Chinese name was pronounced by actual Chinese people in the port towns that British travelers first encountered. The fact that there are about 200 different dialects which change the pronunciation doesn't make Peking wrong, or "imperialistic" in any way. In fact it is just as correct as Bejing (which is also "wrong" it's just the currently accepted form of romanization that's closer to local dialect sounds).
intopieces 11y ago
The name of the place didn't change, but that's not what the article said. The article said that the city was formerly known as "Peking." The same could be said of Mumbai, which was formerly known as "Bombay" but alway referred to as Mumbai by the Speakers of Marathi and Gujarati [0]. The purpose of this statement is to make readers, who may be familiar with both terms, understand that they are the same place, despite having two different names. And I think it's safe to say that a person unfamiliar with the origin of the name would count Peking and Bejing as two different names, since western speakers pronounce them differently. I think saying the spelling changed and not the name itself would be confusing to readers. [0]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/07/mumbai_what_about_bombay.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
- mikeash 11y ago
  Mumbai actually got renamed, though. It was previously Bombay, then the name was changed to Mumbai. So yes, the same could be said of Mumbai, because it actually fits. My whole objection is that the phrasing describes a case like Mumbai's, which is not what happened with Beijing. In the case of Beijing, the official name is the same, it's just a question of which romanization you use. Both Beijing and Peking are right, or wrong, and to a roughly similar degree. (I'd argue that English speakers unfamiliar with Chinese will usually produce something slightly more accurate when phonetically reading "Beijing," but it's not a huge difference.) I know the purpose of the statement is to make readers understand that the two spellings refer to the same place. And I agree that a person unfamiliar with the origins would consider the two spellings to be different names. Which is my whole objection: the article encourages people to think this way, when with a simple change in phrasing they could still convey the main point without also encouraging people to think the city got renamed.

tellthetruth 11y ago

Obviously Peking University disagrees with you. http://www.pku.edu.cn/ http://www.pku.edu.cn/ Yes, it is Peking (and Nanking).

slantyyz 11y ago

Depending on the dialect spoken, the phonetic translation is going to be different. For example, my dialect pronounces the city name as "Buck Gen" (hard g). From Wikipedia: An older English spelling, Peking, is the postal romanization of the same two characters as they are pronounced in Chinese dialects spoken in the southern port towns first visited by European traders and missionaries. Those dialects preserve the Middle Chinese pronunciation of 京 as kjaeng, prior to a phonetic shift in the northern dialects to the modern pronunciation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing