What's new

Why names matter

Spring Onion

PDF VETERAN
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
41,403
Reaction score
19
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Why names matter
Sunday sentiments | Karan Thapar
June 07, 2008
First Published: 20:48 IST(7/6/2008)
Last Updated: 20:54 IST(7/6/2008)

Can one force a name-change on people? My answer is no matter how hard you persist, it’s very difficult and, in some cases, it’s silly to even try. An individual can change his or her name by a deed poll and ensure everyone accepts it. But for cities, particularly old, established, well-known ones, it’s impossible and self-defeating.

No Italian calls Florence Firenze or Venice Venezia in English. Similarly, the Russians call their capital Moscow not Moskva, the Germans say Munich not Munchen, the Czech Prague not Praha and the Austrians Vienna not Wien. Even the Spanish alter the pronunciation of Madrid.From their inception, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras have been known by these names. They represent their history, personality and identity. More importantly, these cities were never anything other than Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. The villages that pre-dated them cannot claim to be their forebears. That would be like insisting New York has its roots in the Iroquois Indian settlements that once existed on Manhattan Island and should be re-named after them!

Today, of course, these cities are officially called Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. It’s too late to quarrel with that or revert to their original names. But why can’t we, unofficially, in our colloquial conversations, in our shop names and business labels and, particularly, when talking of their style and stamp, call them Bombay, Calcutta and Madras?

To do so would not be offensive to Maharashtrian, Bengali or Tamil pride. Nor would it be acceptance of a colonial past — although, how can you say you won’t accept it? And it’s certainly not any form of political incorrectness. On the contrary, it’s acknowledging a reality.

After all, have we forgotten the short and unsatisfactory histories of Leningrad and Stalingrad? Despite the full force of the Soviet state, the names never stuck. The cities always were — and now, once again, are — St. Petersburg and Volgagrad.

Perhaps, one day — as happened in the case of Beijing or Mesopotamia and Persia before that — the new names may replace the old. Or maybe they won’t. But till that day, why can’t we accept both? Surely, this is plain, simple common sense.

However, if this is too radical a suggestion, let me offer an alternative. If you want, insist the cities are called Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai in Marathi, Bengali and Tamil — and maybe all the other Indian languages as well. But in English, the language the world speaks, let Bombay, Calcutta and Madras continue.

Don’t simply think of this as a compromise. It is, after all, the accepted convention the world over. No Italian calls Florence Firenze or Venice Venezia in English. Similarly, the Russians call their capital Moscow not Moskva, the Germans say Munich not Munchen, the Czech Prague not Praha and the Austrians Vienna not Wien. Even the Spanish alter the pronunciation of Madrid. Indeed, the fussy French too!

And don’t tell me this is because these are relatively new countries and that ancient civilisations cannot accept a similar practice. Egypt, by far the oldest civilisation — and appreciably older than ours — is happy for El-Qahira to be Cairo in English. Actually, the city is far better known by the latter rather than the Arab name.

By persisting with our nomenclatural obduracy, all we’ve succeeded in doing is make it more difficult for people to talk about our great cities. Their names no longer trip off the tongue. Instead, they have to pause, occasionally try hard to remember and then struggle to pronounce. And the truth is this cumbersome process puts them off. At the end of the day, that may not matter very much to them. But can you really say the same for us?

My advice to Maharashtrian, Bengali and Tamil chauvinists is ask yourselves a simple question: which is in your greater interest, to force the new names on everyone and irritate, if not annoy them, or to accept that, in English at least, it will take time for their familiarity to be established and, till then, rejoice in the fame and popularity of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras? Think carefully about your answer. If you get it wrong, you could end up cutting your noses to spite your own face!


Why names matter- Hindustan Times
 
As some of our own idiots are trying to do the same in my province, i find these views by mr Karan very intresting and to the point.
 
I do agree with certain points. And I don't mind saying that I hate the names Kolkatta and Bengaluru. They sound clunky and horrible.

Maybe I'm used to Mumbai because its older.

Oh and who's with me on renaming Uttarakhand back to Uttaranchal?
 
Why names matter
Sunday sentiments | Karan Thapar
June 07, 2008
First Published: 20:48 IST(7/6/2008)
Last Updated: 20:54 IST(7/6/2008)

Can one force a name-change on people? My answer is no matter how hard you persist, it’s very difficult and, in some cases, it’s silly to even try. An individual can change his or her name by a deed poll and ensure everyone accepts it. But for cities, particularly old, established, well-known ones, it’s impossible and self-defeating.

No Italian calls Florence Firenze or Venice Venezia in English. Similarly, the Russians call their capital Moscow not Moskva, the Germans say Munich not Munchen, the Czech Prague not Praha and the Austrians Vienna not Wien. Even the Spanish alter the pronunciation of Madrid.From their inception, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras have been known by these names. They represent their history, personality and identity. More importantly, these cities were never anything other than Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. The villages that pre-dated them cannot claim to be their forebears. That would be like insisting New York has its roots in the Iroquois Indian settlements that once existed on Manhattan Island and should be re-named after them!

Today, of course, these cities are officially called Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. It’s too late to quarrel with that or revert to their original names. But why can’t we, unofficially, in our colloquial conversations, in our shop names and business labels and, particularly, when talking of their style and stamp, call them Bombay, Calcutta and Madras?

To do so would not be offensive to Maharashtrian, Bengali or Tamil pride. Nor would it be acceptance of a colonial past — although, how can you say you won’t accept it? And it’s certainly not any form of political incorrectness. On the contrary, it’s acknowledging a reality.

After all, have we forgotten the short and unsatisfactory histories of Leningrad and Stalingrad? Despite the full force of the Soviet state, the names never stuck. The cities always were — and now, once again, are — St. Petersburg and Volgagrad.

Perhaps, one day — as happened in the case of Beijing or Mesopotamia and Persia before that — the new names may replace the old. Or maybe they won’t. But till that day, why can’t we accept both? Surely, this is plain, simple common sense.

However, if this is too radical a suggestion, let me offer an alternative. If you want, insist the cities are called Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai in Marathi, Bengali and Tamil — and maybe all the other Indian languages as well. But in English, the language the world speaks, let Bombay, Calcutta and Madras continue.

Don’t simply think of this as a compromise. It is, after all, the accepted convention the world over. No Italian calls Florence Firenze or Venice Venezia in English. Similarly, the Russians call their capital Moscow not Moskva, the Germans say Munich not Munchen, the Czech Prague not Praha and the Austrians Vienna not Wien. Even the Spanish alter the pronunciation of Madrid. Indeed, the fussy French too!

And don’t tell me this is because these are relatively new countries and that ancient civilisations cannot accept a similar practice. Egypt, by far the oldest civilisation — and appreciably older than ours — is happy for El-Qahira to be Cairo in English. Actually, the city is far better known by the latter rather than the Arab name.

By persisting with our nomenclatural obduracy, all we’ve succeeded in doing is make it more difficult for people to talk about our great cities. Their names no longer trip off the tongue. Instead, they have to pause, occasionally try hard to remember and then struggle to pronounce. And the truth is this cumbersome process puts them off. At the end of the day, that may not matter very much to them. But can you really say the same for us?

My advice to Maharashtrian, Bengali and Tamil chauvinists is ask yourselves a simple question: which is in your greater interest, to force the new names on everyone and irritate, if not annoy them, or to accept that, in English at least, it will take time for their familiarity to be established and, till then, rejoice in the fame and popularity of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras? Think carefully about your answer. If you get it wrong, you could end up cutting your noses to spite your own face!


Why names matter- Hindustan Times

I understand the sentiments that had been written above,

But, I would like to add my point of view, Calcutta...an English speaking person could'nt pronounce the word properly......Bengalis have a way with pronounciation....they used to call it kolkata...they usually call 'sabzi'(Vegetable) as 'sobzi' they call 'machhi' (Fish) 'Mochhi'....which would be a toungtwister to an average englishman, and he wrote their names in his official documents, the way he could pronounce, so he simply wrote Calcutta.

Mumbai, was something that evolved as Bombay, cause it was easy to pronounce...Bengaluru....was simply Bangalore....

There is a town near Hyderabad, the town of a hundred pillar temple...which was the Capital city of the Kakatiyas....was known as Orugallu...was later evolved as Warangal..similarly Vishakapatanam was referred to as Vizag..

Now, tell me, if somebody called Jana as jona..would she simply sit and accept her name is jona and would'nt try to correct the mistake???:cheesy:

Ofcource she would...Mistakes are meant to be corrected!!!!:cheers:
 
I'd hazard people call Jana Jona all the time, persians and the like (am i right yana baji?)...even in urdu-e-mualla the a is more inflected than we're used to saying it these days
 
Well what sounded cooler?

Bombay obviously.
I agree Bengalis always called it Kolkatta even when it was spelt Calcutta. But of course Calcutta sounds better.
Madras became Chennai? Chennai sounds better.

I remember when the names were being changed how much of Hindu pride was being expressed by Indians supporting BJP those days. I figured it would never catch on but BJP went on a marketting frenzy and ensured the new names were used.

But seriously change it back to Bombay. Even the Indian way of saying Bombay was better, bumbaii :D.

Like that song:

Ay dil hai mushkil jeena yahan...
Zara hatke, zara bach ke, yeh hai Dubaiii meri jaan :P

They should do what UAE does.

When they write in English, they write Abu Dhabi and in Arabic it's pronouced Abu Zabi
Dubai >> Dubaiii
Sharjah >> Shariqah

What sounds cooler? Jana or Jona? Let's start a vote. :D

To be clearer on how its said in farsi:
[youtube]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shakespeare has a very famous saying “A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet". That may be true but name does matter.

I am not against changing the name to the original, as it was before the British Raj. For example Karachi was actually a small fishing village called 'Kolachi'. What bugs me is that people are deliberately changing names to forget the insult of being ruled. For example Lyallpur was named Faisalabad. Why?

The city didn’t exist in the 19th Century. Did King Faisal pay for the city of to be constructed? They changed the name of Lawrence Gardens to Jinnah Gardens; did Qaid-e-Azam start the project? I don’t care that the bigoted Hindu party such as BJP are trying to rewrite history by changing the names of the places well known during the Raj, it is their business. Even though it is being naive, changing the names of these places won’t change history.

However I do care about Pakistan. Any one who initiates the project should be remembered. For example the new towns in Karachi such as Nazimabad named after the Governor General in whose period the town was planned. Thankfully Dyal Singh College and Ganga Ram Hospital still have their names with only Govt added.

Both Dyal Singh and Sir Ganga Ram were great sons of undivided India and established these institutions from their personnel funds! If ever Talibaan or MMA were to take over the government, I am sure they will change the names of Jacobabad, Dyal Sing College and Ganga Ram Hospital as well.

As for renaming the NWFP. ANP has a point that Frontier Province only depicts the location and name should be changed to reflect the people who live there.

By all means, build new roads, hospitals and towns after your Greats if you want them to be remembered. IMO it is being hypocritical and ungrateful to extreme; if you change the name of a building, road or of a town to represent someone who had no hand in its origin or to change the name of any place just because you would like to forget an unpleasant past. Rather, the old name should serve to remind you what would happen if you don’t learn from the mistakes that let a foreign power rule you in the first place.

I do agree that name matters.
 
I understand the sentiments that had been written above,

But, I would like to add my point of view, Calcutta...an English speaking person could'nt pronounce the word properly......Bengalis have a way with pronounciation....they used to call it kolkata...they usually call 'sabzi'(Vegetable) as 'sobzi' they call 'machhi' (Fish) 'Mochhi'....which would be a toungtwister to an average englishman, and he wrote their names in his official documents, the way he could pronounce, so he simply wrote Calcutta.

Mumbai, was something that evolved as Bombay, cause it was easy to pronounce...Bengaluru....was simply Bangalore....

There is a town near Hyderabad, the town of a hundred pillar temple...which was the Capital city of the Kakatiyas....was known as Orugallu...was later evolved as Warangal..similarly Vishakapatanam was referred to as Vizag..

Now, tell me, if somebody called Jana as jona..would she simply sit and accept her name is jona and would'nt try to correct the mistake???:cheesy:

Ofcource she would...Mistakes are meant to be corrected!!!!:cheers:

As a Bengali, I must correct you.

It is not Mochhi, it is merely Machh.

Yet, I say there are more important things to do to make the country better than all these cosmetic and useless stuff.

Calcutta, was always Kolkata in Bengali and spelt so on boards etc in Bengali and it was always Calcutta in English and many still call it so, except the govt and those who like change for change itself!

Niaz, it was not the BJP who changed the names. They were never in power in either West Bengal, Tamilnadu or Karnataka or anywhere in the South. Therefore, while BJP is no angels, yet everything odd cannot be dumped on them merely to be with the Joneses.
 
lolz
Jana or Jonah or even Jena :) guess what one of my friends and the wife of a person call me Jena (the English version :P) they cant pronounce "a" in Jana.

But all in all whether Jana, Jonah, Jena at the end its always

Beloved ;)

atleast i got one nice vote from
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom