3 ms·

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

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.

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.