the ukraine

[Gregg Opelka]

The "the" dilemma ("the Ukraine" vs. "Ukraine") seems, under the present
options, to boil down to only two (both undesirable) solutions: English
speakers must
1): refer to it simply as "Ukraine," or
2): refer to it as "the Ukraine."

The problem with #1 is that,
having grown up hearing phrases such as "the Argentine," "the
Midwest," "the Falklands," et al., our ears don't easily digest the
abrupt, unescorted, bare "Ukraine." It begs for the definite article.

The problem with #2 is that
it makes (the?) Ukraine the Rodney Dangerfield of countries:
i.e., it don't get no respect. _Real_ countries don't need the patronizing
"the," unless they're composed of several parts, such as "the Netherlands."
Why do we, (the?) monolithic Ukraine, get stuck with the "the" tag?

Since neither #1 nor #2 is desirable, I offer a different solution, #3,
which would eliminate the need for the definite article altogether.
Why not call the land "Ukrainia"? Nobody says "in _the_ Lithuania," "in
_the_ Romania." The -ia ending would confer full-grown country status on
(the?) poor, abused Ukraine. Note, by the way, the change from "the Argentine"
to "Argentina." Ukrainia might keep both camps happy--at least
until the next sociolinguistic dispute came along.

It's just an idea...and Ukrainia from Ukraina is a lot less of a leap than
Lithuania from Litva.