Southern pronunciations ? (Re: INDOLOGY FAQ

[Robert Zydenbos]

Op 15.02.2010, om 20:37 heeft Paul Kiparsky het volgende geschreven:

> In Europe, the names used abroad tend to be older, rather than new  
> and altered!  Obviously Cologne and Monaco are is closer to the  
> original than Köln and Munchen, etc.

I think it is obvious that 'München' is closer to the original 12th- 
century 'Munichen' than the Italian 'Monaco' is. (I must confess that  
I don't know when the French turned Colonia to 'Cologne'. But even if  
the oldest attestation were to be newer than the native German  
development Colonia > Cöllen > Cöln > Köln, it is indeed arguably  
closer to the Latin original.)

> And 's-Hertogenbosch may be a translation of Bois-le-Duc and not the  
> other way round (for the duke in question was presumably French- 
> speaking).

Not likely, because 's-Hertogenbosch is an old town, much older than  
the one-time fashion among nobles to speak French. Moreover, there are  
too many Dutch place names that have a similar structure ('s- 
Gravenhage, 's-Gravensande,...) and have no French version at all.

>  I'd be surprised if there aren't such cases in India too.

Though we should not rule out that possibility, also in India one has  
to watch out. There are later Sanskritizations of originally non- 
Sanskritic place names that are presented as 'the original' (e.g.,  
Maisūru would be derived from Sanskrit 'Mahiṣāsurapura', or, more  
fancifully, Uḍupi from 'Rūpyapīṭha') -- just like the  
Latinization of München to the supposedly 'original' 'Monachium'.  
(There is even a Latin name for Toronto: Torontum. And there's  
Vinnipega, Vancuverium, Sanctus Johannes, Fredericopolis, Sinus  
Tonitralis, Mons Regius, Regiopolis [Kingston] too.)

RZ