> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of David McCann
> > I have to admit though I'm guilty of using some of the older
> > names for places. I still say Bombay and Saigon even though
> > they were Mumbai and Ho Chi Minh City at the time I was there.
> > It's really just a habit because those names were used for so
> > long.
>
> Don't feel guilty! If speakers of English and Hindi are allowed
> different languages, why can't those languages have different
> placenames in them?
I didn't say I feel guilty, only that I am guilty. I actually am in favor of
local names, just not taking it to the ridiculous extent of trying to pronounce
them precisely like a native.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that we had no previous knowledge of any of
these places. The first thing that's generally done is to find out what the
natives call their home. The second thing is that the anglophone is usually not
able to pronounce it so he gives his best effort within the limits of his
anglophone speaking habits. Here you have the preservation of the local name,
but without expecting non-natives to make any unreasonable efforts.
> ... People who'd never sully their tongues with Bombay
> are still content with Athens and Copenhagen. Political correctness
> strikes again?
I'd have no problem with "Athina" or "Kuppenhaun".