Re: Language naming terminology (was Re: Finno-Ugric languages)

Nik Taylor wrote:

> Sally Caves wrote:
> > At one time, however, the Magyars must have been associated with the Huns.
> > Who applied, and when, the name *Hun*gary?
>
> Related question: why is it that some nations have a name which carries
> over pretty well into other languages (e.g.,
> Spain/Espan~a/Espaigne/Espanha, etc.), while others have totally
> different, and unrelated, names in different languages (e.g.,
> Germany/Deutschland/Alemania)?  I suppose part of it might be different
> peoples living in the same country (e.g., Angles --> England, Saxons -->
> Susanach (the Irish Gaelic name)), but why didn't other nations respect
> the names given by the people thereof, for example, why don't we call
> Germany Dutchland?
There are several comments to be made here.  First, in the case of Germany,
the region was until the time of the Roman Empire inhabited by a plethora
of petty tribes, each of whom had their own separate independent existence.
By the time of the Antonine Emperors and beyond (ca. 180 AD), these many
tribes had consolidated into but a few large tribes (which is by the way one of
the reasons the Romans had difficulty keeping them out at that time: they were
more unified).  The largest and westernmost of these were the Germani (to
the north near what is now Holland and lower Germany), the Teutones (in
the middle) and the Alemanni to the south.  Knowing this, it is easy to see where
many languages got their names: Alemagne (sp?) and Alemania from the Alemanni,
the Germans' own name from the Teutones, and Germany from the Germani.

(Most of these were also, BTW, Roman calques of what the tribes called
themselves:  the Teutones were people of one tribe (from PIE *teuta-, "tribe"),
the Alemanni were a "unified group of men" (cf. ModGer all-, "all", and Mann,
"man"); as for the Germani, I'm not sure how that name came about, it might
have been a founding member's name)

Note that the names used for the same people were used by the people closest
to them; so, for example, the English used "German-" since the Germani were the
closest to them, and the Spanish used "Aleman-" since the Alemani were closest
to _them_, and so forth (I'm not sure where Ital. "tedesco" comes from, but it looks
like it was an early import of *teuta- plus the adjectivalizing suffix -isk-, which became
-ish in English and -isch in German, both /-IS/).

> And why are the Netherlanders also called Dutch?  Is
> "Dutch" related to _Deutsch_?  And why did we add -land to some nations,
> such as Ireland < Eire, but not to others, e.g., not "Spainland"?
Indeed, "Dutch" _is_ related to "Deutsch" (both steming from PIE *teuta-
above).  A sound change during Middle High German came along changing
/eu/ to /oi/ much later.

I think the reason why some nations have "-land" and others don't is that
the suffix was originally meant to derive the name of a land from that of
the people living there. Thus, "Englaland" is land of the Angles, whence,
"England".  Names like "Spain" were imported as names of the land itself,
irrespective of who was living there.  This is why for these place the exact
opposite process occurred: we derived the name of the people from the
name of the land: Spaniard, Italian, etc.  So it all depends on which term
entered the language first.

=======================================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

"Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre;
But al that he myghte of his freendes hente,
On bookes and on lernynge he it spente"
    _Canterbury Tales_, Chaucer (Gen. Prol. 298-300)
========================================================