The more interesting question for John would be what made him change his mind between 1969 and 2009.

I suspect I know the answer. I am pretty sure that I read something by him somewhere that implied that he was becoming more favourably disposed to the Claude Piron position that Esperanto should become more schematic.

There is, of course one teensy-weensy (ie major) problem with the Piron school of thought.

A naturalistic import brings with it many of the connations and associations that exist for that term in the languages from which the term is borrowed.

Any schematic equivalent in Esperanto has to build up this enhanced aura of meaning from usage (or derive it from existing associations of the elements of the compound form).

Of course, appeal to usage in Esperanto is problematic, on account of the paucity of fluent speakers.

In the case of a compound word like 'lernejo, there is enough usage to be confident that such a term does not encompass 'Universitato' (though logically this is also an ejo por lerni) - and everybody understands that 'lernejo' is a certain sort of building, and not a room in a house as is a 'kuirejo'.

But with many possible schematic alternatives to naturalistic borrowings the semantic terrain would be relatively unclear.

Anyway, I can summarise my position of the reĝlando issue like this: Skotlando/normal; Anglo-lando/comic or mocking.

I posted a question about reĝlando/regno on a mailing list for translating into Esperanto, and this is what Bertilo Wennergren said on the matter (his message follows the one from Nicole):

Nicole:

> Ankau mi ne bone komprenas kial Britio estas konsiderata kiel lando.

> David Cameron ankau estas la cxefministro de norda irlando, cxu ne? Kiam mi kontrolas la liston de la landoj cxe la australia posxto, ne estas lando Great Britain, estas nur United Kingdom.

> Britio ne enhavas nordan irlandon, do gxi ne vere povas esti lando, lau mi.

Principe tio estas tute prava... Sed la distingo inter la Unuiĝinta
Reĝlando kaj Britujo (principe nur parto, sed ja la pli granda kaj
klare la pli grava parto de la Unuiĝinta Reĝlando), estas por
ne-Britoj (ne Unuiĝint-Reĝlandanoj), do por la tuta resto de la mondo,
multe malpli interesa kaj multe malpli bone konata ol en la Unuiĝinta
Reĝlando mem. Tial ekster la Unuiĝinta Reĝlando oni tendencas ne zorgi
pri tio, uzante plej ofte (almenaŭ en la komuna lingvo) unu solan kaj
simplan esprimon, kaj tio ofte estas io simila al la Esperanta
"Britujo".

Fakte estas sufiĉe klare, ke jam delonge oni uzadas en Esperanto
praktike nur la vorton "Britujo", ĉu oni celas la efektivan Britujon,
ĉu oni parolas pri la tuta Unuiĝinta Reĝlando de Britujo kaj
Nord-Irlando. Interalie tial ne estas tute klare, kia estas la
efektiva Esperanta formo de la formale pli ĝusta nomo de la tuta
Reĝlando: Ĉu "Unuiĝinta", ĉu "Unuigita", ĉu "Reĝlando", ĉu "Regno"?
Oni uzas tiun nomon tiel ege malofte, ke ĝiaj detaloj ne povis klare
establiĝi.

Ĉiuokaze estas fakto, ke la oficiala nomo en la Angla uzas la vorton
"kingdom", kaj ke tiu vorto signifas "reĝlando", ne "regno". Oni do
nepre devas uzi - kiam oni entute uzas en Esperanto tiun longan
formalan nomon (do treege malofte) - la vorton "reĝlando", ne "regno".
Tiurilate tute ne gravas, ĉu la nomata lando vere estas reĝlando aŭ
ne, nek ĉu la vorto "regno" eble laŭsence pli bone kongruus kun la
realo. Oni traduku la nomon tian, kia ĝi estas. Ne estas nia tasko
provi eltrovi pli ĝustan nomon por tiu regno, ni simple traduku ĝian
efektivan nomon.

Simile, sed eĉ pli frape, oni devas redoni la oficialan nomon de
Nord-Koreujo per "Demokratia Popola Respubliko Koreujo", kvankam tiu
lando apenaŭ estas demokratia. En la nomo uziĝas vorto, kiu signifas
"demokratia", kaj tio estas ĉio, kio gravas.

--
Bertilo Wennergren

Given that the English word Kingdom is also used for the Kingdom of God and the animal kingdom, and actually the head of state is a Queen, one could certainly question whether the Kingdom of the United Kingdom is literally a Reĝlando - which rather undermines Bertilow's argument 'ni simple traduku ĝian efektivan nomon'.

The last word should go to the Britoj here and in this debate we prefer 'Regno' (as in PIV1970 and in the 1957 Grand Dictionnaire Espéranto-français)

Thank you for your infallible and infinitely superior verdict, ambassador of all related in any way shape or form to the UK

As the australian posting the most in this thread, I hereby declare Australia to be called "La Bonega Sudlando", since "La Ega Sudlando" makes my country feel self-conscious about its weight.

Given that the English word Kingdom is also used for the Kingdom of God and the animal kingdom, and actually the head of state is a Queen, one could certainly question whether the Kingdom of the United Kingdom is literally a Reĝlando - which rather undermines Bertilow's argument 'ni simple traduku ĝian efektivan nomon'.

If there's any questioning whether the "kingdom" of the name "UK" is indeed a "reĝlando", it should be whether it's a "Reĝinlando". If we look at it as "well, kingdom can sometimes translate to "regno" (e.g. biologia regno), let's prefer "regno" over "regxlando" because "regxlando" sounds comical", then we're not very dextrous translators.

Anyway, I'm further doubting whether we English and indeed Western European language speakers actually have a firm grasp on the modern meaning of "regno". It seems to translate into some things into other languages which don't translate well to English, e.g. as on this wikipedia page (The German equivalent page is "Reich (Territorium)").

Ironically, Japanese is of no help at all having simply borrowed out generically used English word for "kingdom" as a generic catch all for about a dozen plus meanings.

Lastly for this message - apparently, if you don't like "Reĝlando", "Reĝujo" exists.

There's no such thing as a "reĝinlando", just as there is no "queendom" in English. A "reĝlando" refers to level of ruler, not whether the ruler is a man or a woman, so a reĝlando could be ruled by either a king or a queen.

The use of "regno" in the translation of UK is ridiculously unspecific. It's like saying "United Territory" rather than "United Kingdom".

Anyway, it seems to be a settled matter, since "Unuiĝinta Reĝlando" is the common term today, and "Unuiĝinta Regno" is rare.

Sudanglo, if you feel very strongly about it, perhaps you should send John Wells your own e-mail to ask him about it? I'm sure he'll tell you his opinion. I happen to agree with what Bertilo wrote, however.

I doubt that the majority of British (or UK-ish) Esperantists would agree that "regno" is preferable to "reĝlando" in this context.

I don't have a problem in principle with reĝinlando as a kunmetita vorto. The fact that we don't need in in practice is therefore a matter of usage, the relevance of which principle sudanglo has already pointed out.

The question is whether regno means simply "state" or something more, that requires a monarch. PIV 2005 appears to support the former; a regno is any sovereign political unity. Butler on the other hand has "Kingdom, State", so that regno can be used for both ideas.

Both expressions can found on the internet easily enough by googling. I found three instances of Unuiĝinta Regno in the tekstaro, but (to my surprise) none of Unuiĝinta Reĝlando.

I didn't ask John Wells why he changed from the 1st to the 2nd edition of his dictionary, but sudanglo's hypothesis sounds plausible to me.

Reĝlando would have an advantage in expressing the reality of a monarch, were it not for the fact that Elizabeth II is also Queen of a number of other regnoj, which do not have a common citizenship with the UK. So that's one reason to prefer regno, which expresses one citizenship - though it doesn't express the autonomy that Scotland has in a number of areas.

In fact either word is only fully meaningful in the context Unuiĝinta R. de Granda Britio kaj Nord-Irlando.

So, while I might prefer regno, I can live with those who prefer other usages.

Sorry about Regxinlando, that was a play on the "queenliness" of the UK. not quite so serious

@ Miland - I'm not sure if this helps, but since England and Scotland, the two main and most important parts of the UK (sorry N.Ireland!), were both kingdoms immediately before the UK, and the UK only really exists because of them*, there's no reason to mention the regnoj outside of the UK that belong to Elizabeth. We outside of the UK but still belonging to the English thrown are just cheery old colonies and don't really feel like we need to be included in the "kingdoms" part (Ni nur estas "la komunumaj regnoj" )

*Well, the Kingdom of Ireland was also integrated, but most of Ireland broke off, so Northern Ireland is the only part of the "Kingdom of Ireland" left - that was after the UK began anyway.

ceigered:..there's no reason to mention the regnoj outside of the UK that belong to Elizabeth..

Years ago, Prince Charles said in a TV interview that the royal family didn't own Australia, and didn't make any money from it. Elizabeth II said in a speech in Sydney that whether Australia retains the monarchy is a decision for its people, so she would presumably deny 'ownership' in that sense as well.

Surely Erinja the Bertilow argument is contradictory. On the one hand he accords the right to the North Koreans to name their country Demokratia Popola Respubliko Koreujo even though the country is not Demokratia.

But on the other hand he suggests the UK should be named Unuiĝinta Reĝlando because it is called a Kingdom in English - totally ignoring the fact that native speakers of English may feel quite rightly that the correct translation of this word in this context is Regno.

So in the case of North Korea - doesn't matter whether it is a Democracy or not, just copy the local naming, he says.

But in the case of the UK, translate the reality of the governance - ie translate Kingdom as Reĝlando not Regno - and not what English speaker natives feel they are expressing in using the English the word Kingdom - which idea is very nicely translated by Regno.
----------------------
The Tekstaro search is particularly interesting Miland, since the three instances come from recent publications.

Miland:

ceigered:..there's no reason to mention the regnoj outside of the UK that belong to Elizabeth..

Years ago, Prince Charles said in a TV interview that the royal family didn't own Australia, and didn't make any money from it. Elizabeth II said in a speech in Sydney that whether Australia retains the monarchy is a decision for its people, so she would presumably deny 'ownership' in that sense as well.

Of course we don't pay for our Queen, what do you think we are, nuts?
But yes, Australia holds onto being owned by the Queen by its own will. Aka we pledge allegiance to the queen by majority vote. I guess you could call it similar to a slave-master relationship where due the master being a good fellow, the slave chooses to be by their side.

Sudanglo:"totally ignoring the fact that native speakers of English may feel quite rightly that the correct translation of this word in this context is Regno."

Many native speakers of English also feel that the correct translation of "correct" is "korekta". There are good arguments for why it can be used, but most tend to ignore the fact there's a perfectly good word already sitting around called "ĝusta" which does not inherit the intricacies of a verb root.

As a native speaker of English, I feel pretty certain that the meaning of "regno" does not equate to the meaning of "kingdom" in use with "the UK".
The main meaning (and in fact, I am very hard pressed to find any other meanings for "kingdom" other than the biological term which translates to "regno") for "kingdom" in English is "A nation having as supreme ruler a king and/or queen.".

Any other use of the word is poetic, extrapolated from its original form (e.g. not precise) or wrong. Once again, the UK is the UK because two "nations ruled by a king/queen" came together by interlinked thrones. That is the history behind the name "the United Kingdom". Additionally, the only meaning "kingdom" can have in this context is a state ruled by a king/queen.

As Bertilow said, it's not about reality of the governance, it's about the name. Otherwise I'm gonna start calling "Russia" "Random-miscellaneous-slavic-and-non-slavic-groups-who-live-up-in-the-north-of-eurasia", or "RMSANSGWLUPITNOE", pronounced "rm:sansguŭluitnoŭe". Ah, yes, need to add "ujo" there....

And as I used with my "great southern land" example before, as an Australian I might feel that "great" should be translated as "bonega", but the meaning of "great" as in "vast" is more likely the original reason "great" was used, as I doubt the Australian tourism industry's propaganda existed back when "great southern land" was invented! .

Anyway, using "regno" just creates double standards, is too generic, and very strange. From an English speaker perspective, "regno" sounds nice and better, from an Esperanto speaker's perspective, "regno" in this case sounds like neologistic usage of the word used to sound more "professional" by using Latin based words rather than EO-specific constructs.