bishop

[Robert Orr]

[ moderator edited]

Pete Gray:

> Why do you claim, Ed, that eis te:n polin > istambul involves rules jumping
> languages?  Wasn't the contemporary Greek pronunciation /i:sta:mbulin/?  It
> would simply be taken over as a meaningless phonetic string.

why is this a problematic explanation?

Leo A. Connolly:

> <eis te:n polin> should already have been something like [is ti(m) bolin], as
> in current Greek.  The vowels would be all wrong.  And why on earth would the
> Greeks have given something meaning 'to the city' as the name of their
> capital?

The capital was known as "i polis" the city for an extended period.

The study of toponyms is littered with such cases, cf. Scottish Gaelic
Gallaibh, Cataibh.

> Ed is right: that etymology is a fable, but it's so bad I'd be reluctant to
> blame it on a linguist.

It's actually rather a good one.   There's an article in Language:

Tiersma, Peter. 1982. "Local and General Markedness". L 58: 832-849.

whch deals precisely with such cases, where placenames or nouns denoting
location locative or directonal forms become unmarked

> It's in a class with _tip_ 'gratuity' < T(o) I(nsure) P(rompt) S(ervice), or
> **** < F(or) U(nlawful) C(arnal) K(nowledge).

No,it isn't.

> It's amazing how many people accept such things, but linguists shouldn't.

Yes they should.  It's part of the warp and woof of linguistics, much more
so than various obscurantist mathematical formulations.

Robert Orr