LL-L "Names" 2003.02.20 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 20.FEB.2003 (07) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
 Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
 Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
 To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
 text from the same account to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or
 sign off at <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Eldo Neufeld <greneuf at interchange.ubc.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Names" 2003.02.20 (01) [E]

>From: William Parker <William.Parker at three.co.uk>
>Subject: Names
>
>Lowlanders,
>
>Ron wrote re Names:
>
>>>E. Frankford = G. Frankfurt
>
>I have to say that I have never seen this form of the "English" version of
>the city name. Normally we use the standard German both cities (an der Oder
>and Am Main). In general I would say that in the past British English has
>typically used either the French form of German city names (e.g. Aix la
>Chapelle, Cologne) and in some cases an anglicised version (e.g. Munich,
>Hanover) rather than original German name word.  With the huge expansion in
>cheap air travel over the past 20 years,  people are now much more aware of
>the local name for a city and quite comfortable with using these in the
>main. The examples of Aix and Cologne probably reflect the historic
>influence of French in high culture in both the UK and German in the 18th
>century, and the role these two cities played at that time.  Although in
the
>case of Aix I suspect this usage is being ousted by the German Aachen in
>British speech.  For most British users their usage will be guided by names
>shown on maps - which typically are in the main language(s) of that country
>
>In general  towns / cities around the linguistic frontiers have multiple
>names - usage depending on the language choice of the speaker. Eg for the
>following languages G/D/F (and by default also English usage, probably
>because of the historic influence French has had on English).
>
>Aachen / Aken / Aix la chappelle
>Luttich / Luik / Liege
>Rijsel / Lille (in "Frans Vlaanderen")
>Brugge / Bruges (but note English use for Zeebrugge, and Brussels for
>Bruxelles/Brussel)
>
>Regards
>> William Parker

I would be interested in knowing what the reason would be for using the
English
form of Lunenburg rather than Lüneburg at this time in history..  I would
suspect that most English speakers, at least those in Canada and the U.S.,
wouldn't even recognize which city the English form refers to.  (There is
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, of course, as well as several cities by that name
in the U.S.)

Eldo Neufeld

----------


R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>:
Subject: Names

Eldo,

The English names of places in Germany we are talking about have been used
for a long time, certainly in Britain.  Sure, so many or most North
Americans are not familiar with them, but what else is new when it comes to
knowledge about other parts of the world?  Does that invalidate those names?
Who gets to decide which name version ceases to be valid and which one
should be continued?  Certainly, British people are familiar with
"Brunswick" and "Hanover" (in part because of connections with their royal
family).  Should we start using "Braunschweig" and "Hannover" instead?  If
not now, when?  And who gets to decide?  Should we start using "München"
instead of "Munich" and "Nürnberg" instead of "Nuremberg" to be consistent?
What about "Bayern" instead of established "Bavaria", "Köln" instead of
"Cologne" ... or even "Deutschland" instead of "Germany" while we are at it?
And in other parts for instance "Göteborg" instead of "Gothenburg",
"København" instead of "Copenhagen", and "Bruxelle" or "Brussel" instead of
"Brussels" (depending if you favor French- or Dutch-speaking Belgium),
"Firenze" instead of "Florence", "Lisbõa" instead of "Lisbon", and
"Yerushalayim" or "al-Qudz" instead of "Jerusalem" (depending on your
preference of Hebrew or Arabic)?

Whenever established English names for foreign places or objects exist I use
them when I use English and, if in doubt about the readership's knowledge,
give the native versions in parenthesis when writing.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
  <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================