Re: CHAT Stambul (was: A new version of Genesis)

Oh dear - I didn't for one moment think my mail would stir up all these
postings - mainly, I guess, because I hadn't been aware there was any
doubt about the origin of 'Istanbul'/'Stamboul'.

No doubt by the time I download the next 70 to 80 postings, there'll be
more. But I'll try to deal with those so far (morning of Tuesday, 15th
June).

On Monday, June 14, 2004, at 10:10 , Roger Mills wrote:
[snip]
> I too have seen the _eis ten polis [istinpolis]_ explanation favored over
> "corruption" of Constantinopolis, but have my doubts.  For one thing, why
> should [i] change to [a]?
{groan} _No one_ has claimed that [i] changed directly to [a]!!

The well established and well documented _fact_ is that north and east of
a line which runs down the coast of Epiros and Akarnania, then along the
Gulf of Corinth, across the Isthmus, along the northern frontier of Attika,
  south of Euboia, through the middle of the island of Andros, north of
Ikaria and south of Samos and so to the coast of Asia Minor, unaccented /i/
  and /u/ are dropped completely (become 'zero'), and unaccented /e/ and /o/
  become [i] and [u] respectively. Therefore, standard Greek [stim'boli]
/stin poli/ --> northern [stm='bol].

(Yes, I did make a mistake in giving *[stm='bul], but the [stm='bol] is,
as I say, well attested and Roger or any one else can go there and check
for themselves.

The Turks have no shwa or vocalic 'm'. The change from [m=] to [am] is not
exactly unknown among the worlds's languages!

All I claim is that [stm='bol] became [stam'bul]. I see nothing in the
sound changes involved that are at all unusual or unattested in many other
languages.

> When I visited San Francisco a long time ago-- stayed with relatives in
> one
> of the suburbs-- they and neighbors consistently referred to "The City".
> Similarly in NYC, tho "The City" means Manhattan, nowhere else.  In my
> admittedly sketchy contacts, I don't recall any others referring to their
> metropolis as "The City". Bostonians?? Chicagoans?? Philadelphians??
> Atlantans?? Angelenos?? Houstonians?? Minneapolitans?? I don't think so.
Your thought is, I'm afraid, contradicted by actual Greek texts. All the
cities listed are USA ones. It is IMO poor argument to apply Amerocentic
perceptions to the rest of the world.

Just read actual Byzantine texts. It is, however odd it may seem, well
attested and documented that Byzantine Greeks and, indeed, Greeks under
Turkish rule did refer to Constantinople/Byzantion as "the City". It may
seem an odd habit to some, but the evidence is not hard to find.
 =========================================================================

On Tuesday, June 15, 2004, at 05:50 , Nik Taylor wrote:

> I don't question the "City" part of the story, I question the
> preposition "in".  I could easily see "The City" becoming analyzed as a
> name, but the incorporation of a preposition seems a bit far-fetched to
> me.
This is anglocentric reasoning. When we are asked where where we live or
where we come from, we normally answer just with the name of the town,
county, state, country or whatever. This is _not_ necessarily the habit of
speakers of other languages.

I remember once my father-in-law, who knows some French, as my daughter's
pen-friend where she was from or where she lived. The friend answered
[a~bRetaJ]. My father-in-law looked very puzzled as he was mentally going
through all the French place names he could think of beginning with
'amb- '; on asking "Where?", my wife hastily translated "Brittany" (note:
She didn't use the preposition in her English reply).

I think it not at all improbable that, in an age before printing & mass
communication, a conquering race who knew little or no French and care
less for the language, might get to name Brittany as something like
*Ambretain. I believe, indeed - but don't have time to check it out - that
similar instances have actually occurred.

I find it more than plausible that the conquering Ottoman Turks heard [stm=
'bol] often enough to take it as the name of the city. Conquering armies
are not in the habit IME of asking the conquered questions like 'Is that
an inflected form?', 'Is that a locative?', 'Say, what's the nominative of
that?'   :)
 =========================================================================

To recapitulate:
1. I see no difficulty in accepting that the conquering Ottomans were
familiar with the phrase [stm='bol] they heard used by the conquered
Greeks.
2. I see nothing unusual in the sound change [stm='bol] --> [(i)stambul]

On the other hand, those championing the derivation (Kon)stantinopolis -->
Istanbu/Stambul need to show:
(a) Evidence that the form *stantino'polis was ever used. I know of no
such evidence, tho am willing to be shown it.

(b) How *stantino'poli(s) changed to [stambul]

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Replies