11 ms·
Interesting article, but it should be noted that there is no "official name in English" in any meaningful sense of the word. Yes, you can cite what a particular
by jrd79 5y ago
Interesting article, but it should be noted that there is no "official name in English" in any meaningful sense of the word. Yes, you can cite what a particular government entity uses, but unlike French, English is not an officially regulated language, and as such, we are all free to call things and places what we please.
Every language has names for foreign places that are not the same as the name that is in local use in that place. It is Munich and Rome, not München and Roma. That is because place names, like all words, are chosen organically by speakers of the language for convenience, ease, and clarity. To an English speaker, "München" or "Kyiv" are hard to pronounce in their native forms, and so we have alternatives. No disrespect is intended, and none should be taken. Foreigners do the same thing for American place names, as well they should.
There is also value in continuity. Changing place names in a language due to external pressure of non-resident non-speakers of the language, places an undue burden on the speakers, for little or no benefit to the speakers of the language. The language is for its speakers, not for non-speakers.
I grew up with "Kiev" and "the Ukraine" (as well as Peking, Bombay, Canton, and many others). It is relatively harmless to change these, which is why most people just go with the flow. But it is not a moral issue, and people who wish to stick with older forms should not be ostracized. No one can stop a scold from being a scold, but most people don't like scolds, even if they sometime acquiesce to their demands out of politeness or a sense of conflict-avoidance.
- kube-system 5y agoThere might not be a regulatory body that dictates English usage, but there are multiple occupational authorities who publish guidelines for English usage. The AP guide is pretty contextually relevant here, and the basis for which they changed their style guide to "Ukraine" from "the Ukraine" was their departure from the USSR, so there's a definite political context to the usage in English reporting.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago> but unlike French, English is not an officially regulated language This isn't actually how french works either, or any of those languages that have official academies. Those should probably be viewed mostly as vestigial tools of state formation left over from the bootstrapping-nationstates era of european history. Or cultural relics from before linguistics had its current understanding of how languages form and change. They are many things but ultimately they're not the ones that decide what words should be used or what they mean. > But it is not a moral issue It's not a dire one by any means, I wouldn't argue for consequences for failing to meet it. But I do think we have a light moral responsibility to refer to people and groups of people by the names they ask us to use when referring to them. A lot of "new" names for cities and countries are because the "old" name was chosen without consideration or consultation with the people who live there. We're now much more easily able to have those consultations, so we should, and they should inform the names we use.
- School-Cotton 5y agoYou are right about French. The language academy has no legal authority (they don’t “officially regulate” anything), and very little influence on common speech. It is a state-funded cultural institution, nothing more.
- jrd79 5y agoThe Wikipedia page states: "The Académie is France's official authority on the usages, vocabulary, and grammar of the French language". And "The body has the duty of acting as an official authority on the language." So while they may lack the power to enforce their official positions, the mere existence of an official state-sanctioned authority for a language is a notable difference from English.