Saluton

Out of curiosity, I was wondering about the way place names were assigned in Esperanto. Specifically, are there any instances where a nation state or indigenous people have requested that the Esperanto word for their country be changed to more accurately reflect what they themselves call their land?

Hypothetically: South Korea > Hanguko instead of Sud-Koreio, or Hungary > Madjario/Madjarorsago instead of Hungario.

This may not be such a big deal in many established countries; it could even be counter-productive as most people would not be able to recognize the native names. Although I think of Burma > Myanmar, Congo > Zaire > Congo, Bombay > Mumbai, or Frobisher Bay > Iqaluit.

However, for many peoples who are a minority part of the country they find themselves in, using an ethnonym is an important means of asserting sovereignty. I can imagine that "Inuito" would be much more appropriate (in Canada anyway) than "Eskimo", or "Denesulineo" instead of "Ĉipvajano".

I started thinking about this when I learned that India is "Barato", Welsh is "Kimra", and Basque is "Eŭska" instead of something like a more internationally recognizable *Indio, *Gala or *Baska.

I just think it would be wonderful if an "Esperanto Atlas of the World" could show the local place names instead of the usual colonizer names.

Dankon

languagegeek:Specifically, are there any instances where a nation state or indigenous people have requested that the Esperanto word for their country be changed to more accurately reflect what they themselves call their land?

Not that I know of, no. After all this does not happen with ethnic languages... I can't picture hordes of angry Italians picketing the Polish or Hungarian embassy to have them change their local translations of "Italy" into something more conforming (not that substituting -ia with a -y could be that easily overlooked, now that I think about it... we don't even have a Y in our alphabet! Damn English! )

Seriously, you might bring your question to the Akademio. I am not sure they would consider swapping the old word for a new one upon request, but perhaps this has been done in the past and I just never heard about it.

The only occasion of a name-change that I can remember off the top of my head is Hindio -> Barato (or "Bharato" according to some people). This may not even qualify as a change, necessarily, since Hindio and Barato are both in use. In any case, a lot of people think the word "Hindio" gives a somewhat erroneous impression that all Indians are Hindu, which is definitely not true, so those people prefer the more neutral "Barato". Plenty of people still use the word Hindio, however; I haven't ever personally heard of someone being criticized for this use (it is the historical use, after all). But the Indian Esperanto Association uses "Barato" in its name - it is the Federacio Esperanto de Barato.

My usual policy is to call people what they prefer to be called. I have seen occasional reference to Finland being referred to as "Suomio" rather than "Finnlando" but this doesn't seem to be widespread, and I don't know of any Finnish Esperanto groups that name themselves this way. Regarding Hungary, I have never (personally) seen a suggestion to call it Madjario, or anything of the sort. Nor have I heard US Esperanto speakers complain of being called Usono and not "Unajtedstejcio" or "Amerikio" or anything like that.

Bottom line - I think that Indians have a valid reason for not wanting to be called Hindio, and most other countries don't care that much what they are called. Very well known countries are usually given something close to the international form of the name (Germanio and not Dojĉlando, Egiptio and not Misro, etc). Lesser known places usually seem to get something closer to the local name for the place (Kimrio, Eŭskio, Kartvelio, etc). I don't know if that's the intended plan but that's the way it seems (usually) to work out, to my eye.

Ah, and the other little snag in calling countries by the local name - if the country has more than one official language, it becomes a test of which language is "more important". So would Switzerland ("Svislando" currently) be Sxvico, Sviso, Svicero, or Svizro? Or "Helvetio", which matches Swiss coinage but bears no resemblance to the modern names of the country? Would New Zealand be Nov-Zelando (as it is now) or Aotearoo?

In Vikipedio under the article Barato we find:
"Barato estas federacia ŝtato en Suda Azio sur la duoninsulo Hindio en la Hinda oceano." (I translate: India is a federal state in South Asia on the Indian peninsula in the Indian ocean.) In other words, Barata Respubliko = Republic of India is located in the Indian pensinsula which also includes Bangladesh and Nepal. Hindio is the geographical subcontinent.

If "Hindio" is the Indian subcontinent, then that must be a new usage. Any Esperanto dictionary I have ever seen has defined "Hindio" as being the country of India. The Esperanto-only dictionaries usually mention that it's a country extending into the Indian ocean, that has shared borders with Pakistan, Nepal, and China.

In the PIV 2005 , the best dictionary we've got, under Hindio we have:
1. Regiono de S Azio 2. Federacia regno, okupanta la plej granda parto de H-io. SIN. B(h)arato. In short both usages have been made but the geographical one is primary, at least nowadays.

Suppose the Akademio de Esperanto would request governments to offer a poll to their citizens. Citizens would read a bit about the Esperanto alphabet, pronunciation, and the currently accepted geographical names, then be provided with several alternatives and explanations of each potential name. Voters would select names for their own towns, counties, territories, and countries. This way, new names could be more regular, more personal, and more polite.

Imagine if Germano were Dojĉo, and Germanio were Dojĉio or something, or if Finnlando didn't have the double "n." I understand that an "-ujo" ending has become "-io," so I think that a change of this kind would do much good. It seems unlikely and financially impossible that this would happen, but it doesn't hurt to discuss it!

Maybe something like this would even spark interest in Esperanto and let people know that the community still thrives!

mnlg:
Not that I know of, no. After all this does not happen with ethnic languages... I can't picture hordes of angry Italians picketing the Polish or Hungarian embassy to have them change their local translations of "Italy" into something more conforming (not that substituting -ia with a -y could be that easily overlooked, now that I think about it... we don't even have a Y in our alphabet! Damn English! )

It does happen. This is why I brought up the example of Myanmar and Mumbai. There are many examples of places where the English word has changed to reflect local usage. The same could be said for Beijing, Guangzhou, and almost everywhere else in China. Is the capital of China Pekino or Pejĉingo?

If you look in a newer English atlas, you’ll see that the "Sea of Japan" is now often written "Sea of Japan (East Sea)", due to strong pressure from the South Korean government (essentially picketing embassies).

Of course, if Esperanto were to ever get a kind of official status, I can virtually guarantee that many places will want their place name words changed. Then there would have to be some sort of place name register.

There’s a sort of gradual rewriting of the map in North America, where certain place names are reverting to their indigenous forms. I thought it was great to see words like Kimra and Eŭska and wondered if these were the result of local pressure/request. Local place names are a great way to show that Esperanto truly belongs to everyone!

erinja:
Ah, and the other little snag in calling countries by the local name - if the country has more than one official language, it becomes a test of which language is "more important". So would Switzerland ("Svislando" currently) be Sxvico, Sviso, Svicero, or Svizro? Or "Helvetio", which matches Swiss coinage but bears no resemblance to the modern names of the country? Would New Zealand be Nov-Zelando (as it is now) or Aotearoo?

I seem to recall "Suisse" written on their bobsleds I'm sure they could come up with something. Though I'd be curious as to what would happen in Belgium! It's an interesting philosophical question, and one that I think about often. Are names of countries, cities, etc. for all of us, the world, to decide on? Or do local preferences trump general usage? In English, it's particularly interesting, because it raises the question, who owns English? There's a reason why South Korea didn't go after changing the name of the Sea of Japan in other languages, only English.

For Western independent countries, like USA, Hungary, Finland, etc., there doesn't seem to have been any movement for internationalising their own local ethnonyms or toponyms. In English, Albania is still Albania, and Greece is still Greece, and Munich is still Munich. In many parts of the world which were colonised by Europeans, using local names is a mark of pride and a reclaiming of history.

Good thing Esperanto has consistent stress, otherwise the English and French Canadians could find a new thing to argue about: Ka'nado or Kanado', Kana'do is such a nice compromise, and it matches the original Iroquois word better!

Good thing Esperanto has consistent stress, otherwise the English and French Canadians could find a new thing to argue about: Ka'nado or Kanado', Kana'do is such a nice compromise, and it matches the original Iroquois word better!

Random and irrelevant: I want a t-shirt that says "You're in America; speak Oneida/Tsėhesenėstsestotse!" or something. I'm just sick of hearing "You're in America; speak English!"