Estonian-Ukrainian Relations

4 views
Skip to first unread message

AHetzer

unread,
Jul 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/24/98
to
David McDuff wrote:
>
> On 23 Jul 1998 12:17:25 GMT, hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
> wrote:
>
> >, that
> >the definite article signifies some 'provincial' or 'subordinate' status,
> >as in 'the Provence', 'the Great Plains', or 'the Midwest'
>
> I suppose a closer parallel would be 'The Crimea'?


And LA France, LA Suisse, LA Turquie ...

>
> Best regards,
> David McDuff

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff

unread,
Jul 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/24/98
to
In article <35B861...@uni-bremen.de>,

That's French usage, not English. At least no English speaker I've ever
met (native or otherwise) says "the France", "the Switzerland", etc.

However, they do say "the Middle East", "the Midwest", "the Midlands",
etc.--all regions, not states. I can completely understand how Ukrain-
ians, touchy about Ukraine's treatment as a region for centuries, would
want to reject this precedent.

Similarly, note the preference of the Country-formerly-known-as-Zaire for
"Congo" rather than "the Congo". "The Congo" is a region; "Congo" is a
country. Similarly, "the Sudan" vs. "Sudan".
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!

Robin or David

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
AHetzer wrote:
>
> David McDuff wrote:
> >
> > On 23 Jul 1998 12:17:25 GMT, hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >, that
> > >the definite article signifies some 'provincial' or 'subordinate' status,
> > >as in 'the Provence', 'the Great Plains', or 'the Midwest'
> >
> > I suppose a closer parallel would be 'The Crimea'?
>
> And LA France, LA Suisse, LA Turquie ...
>
> > Best regards,
> > David McDuff

Interesting. I remember when first being taught German that three
countries *had* to have the articles attached: Die Schweiz, Die Turkei,
and Die Tschechoslovakei...

Dave

F. Tereshchenko

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
In article <EwM5t...@midway.uchicago.edu>,

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <35B861...@uni-bremen.de>,
>AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>>David McDuff wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23 Jul 1998 12:17:25 GMT, hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >, that
>>> >the definite article signifies some 'provincial' or 'subordinate' status,
>>> >as in 'the Provence', 'the Great Plains', or 'the Midwest'
>>>
>>> I suppose a closer parallel would be 'The Crimea'?
>>
>>And LA France, LA Suisse, LA Turquie ...
>
>That's French usage, not English. At least no English speaker I've ever
>met (native or otherwise) says "the France", "the Switzerland", etc.
>
>However, they do say "the Middle East", "the Midwest", "the Midlands",
>etc.--all regions, not states. I can completely understand how Ukrain-
>ians, touchy about Ukraine's treatment as a region for centuries, would
>want to reject this precedent.
>
>Similarly, note the preference of the Country-formerly-known-as-Zaire for
>"Congo" rather than "the Congo". "The Congo" is a region; "Congo" is a
>country. Similarly, "the Sudan" vs. "Sudan".

What about THE Netherlands, THE United States, THE Gambia?

Feodor

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to
In article <6pcrp7$emu$1...@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>,

What about them?

"the Netherlands" was, for most of its existence, a region rather than a
state.

"the United States [of America]", like all generically qualified state
names in English, requires an article. So "the Republic of France" but
not *"the France". "The United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland]", but not *"the Great Britain", *"the Britain" or *"the England".
(But "the Kingdom of England", "the Principality of Wales", etc.). "The
Russian Federation" but not *"the Russia", etc. Significantly, the short
form of the name (parallel to the others listed here) is "America", not
*"the America".

"The Gambia" is a true exception: It's the only unqualified country name
in English I can think of that officially requires an article (unless you
want to count the "el" in "El Salvador"). I don't understand, though, why
one should expect "Ukraine" to follow the precedent of a solitary excep-
tion rather than the hundreds upon hundreds of regular forms.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:

> >What about THE Netherlands, THE United States, THE Gambia?
>
> What about them?
>
> "the Netherlands" was, for most of its existence, a region rather than a
> state.
>

This is exactly the point - "for most of its existence, a region rather than a
state" when one speaks about the Ukraine. One cannot put it better, thanks.

VM

Mark Rosenfelder

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to
In article <EwppL...@midway.uchicago.edu>,

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>"The Gambia" is a true exception: It's the only unqualified country name
>in English I can think of that officially requires an article (unless you
>want to count the "el" in "El Salvador").

It's "The Gambia" because it's named after the river. There's also The
Bahamas. And if you're a 19th-century pith-helmeted Englishman, you can
refer to Argentina as the Argentine.

Harlan Messinger

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to
mark...@huitzilo.tezcat.com (Mark Rosenfelder) wrote:

>
>It's "The Gambia" because it's named after the river. There's also The
>Bahamas.

As well as the Solomon Islands (judging from the web site of their
Ministry of Commerce) and . The definite article isn't part of the
name, as in The Gambia, but it's employed. OTOH, I've seen The Gambia
referred to simply as Gambia often as not.

The Maldivian Ministry of Tourism web site is fully inconsistent as to
whether it's Maldives or the Maldives.

Harlan Messinger

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to
Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:

>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>
>> >What about THE Netherlands, THE United States, THE Gambia?
>>
>> What about them?
>>
>> "the Netherlands" was, for most of its existence, a region rather than a
>> state.
>>
>
> This is exactly the point - "for most of its existence, a region rather than a
>state" when one speaks about the Ukraine. One cannot put it better, thanks.

But the Netherlands is apparently not so insecure about it, because
they haven't protested. (Their own name for their country is
"Nederland".) That doesn't negate the right of the Ukrainians to have
a preference.

AHetzer

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to


Vive LA France, vive LA Russie!

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to

Harlan Messinger wrote:

Most of Ukrainians give no one flying damn about the article. Because they fighting
from day to day for bread. But some diaspora representatives instead of sending money
to help people there express their patriotism in breaking other languages. Simple like
that - to be a patriot for less than a penny.Bastards.

VM


AHetzer

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
Robin or David wrote:

>
> AHetzer wrote:
> >
> > David McDuff wrote:
> > >
> > > On 23 Jul 1998 12:17:25 GMT, hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >, that
> > > >the definite article signifies some 'provincial' or 'subordinate' status,
> > > >as in 'the Provence', 'the Great Plains', or 'the Midwest'
> > >
> > > I suppose a closer parallel would be 'The Crimea'?
> >
> > And LA France, LA Suisse, LA Turquie ...
> >
> > > Best regards,
> > > David McDuff
>
> Interesting. I remember when first being taught German that three
> countries *had* to have the articles attached: Die Schweiz, Die Turkei,
> and Die Tschechoslovakei...
>
> Dave


DER Irak, DER Sudan, DIE Slowakei (all on stressed -ei, as Walachei,
Türkei etc.), DIE Tschechei (now outdated; politically correct:
Tschechien without article, as Indien and all the like on -ien), DER
Kongo, DIE USA (plural), DIE Niederlande. Thus, the article is
predictable in German, when the ending is -ei, whereas -ien never has
the article.

Generally speaking: in Romance languages the article seems to be
obligatory in (almost) all cases, in German it is a little bit less, and
in English almost never. In Slavic languages there is no article
(besides Bulgarian/Macedonian), therefore the question does not arise
there.

Harlan Messinger

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de> wrote:

>
>Vive LA France, vive LA Russie!

Well, the situation in French is a little different. EVERY country is
modified by an article in the same circumstances (such as when the
country is the subject of a sentence), but the article is not
generally considered part of the name.

Le Mexique est en Amerique du Nord.
La France est en Europe.
La Chine est en Asie.

The grammatical rules differ according to the gender of the country.
To express the concept of being in or going to a county, the article
is generally discarded and the preposition "en" is used for feminine
country names, whereas the preposition "a" is combined with the
article for masculine names.

Je suis alle au Mexique, en France, et en Chine.

Similarly for "of" or "from": in some cases, the article is omitted
for the feminine names but not for the masculine names.

Banque du Mexique
Banque de France
Banque de Chine

In some cases, the article is considered part of the name, as in la
Suisse, though I can't tell whether it has any grammatical
impact--it's still "en Suisse".


bga...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
In article <35BBA7...@uni-bremen.de>,

The Slav languages have genders and gender endings and this is exactly what
the articles are mainly used for in German and in French, to indicate gender.

Hence, we have Ukraina(feminine), Rossiya(feminine), Krym(masculine),
Soyedinennyeye Shtaty Ameriki(masculine plural), Kongo(neutral),
Kitai(masculine). Of course, all nouns and adjectives have to have gender
endings in Russian.

>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Alwyn Thomas

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:

> "the Netherlands" was, for most of its existence, a region rather than a
> state.

Not quite. I think you're referring to "the Low Countries" (*de Lage Landen*).

Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands is *Beatrix, Koningin der Nederlanden*
(originally Holland and Belgium), but the country she rules is officially
*Nederland*.

Confusing, isn't it?


Alwyn

Denis Tishchenko

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
Vladimir Makarenko wrote:

> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> > But the Netherlands is apparently not so insecure about it, because
> > they haven't protested. (Their own name for their country is
> > "Nederland".) That doesn't negate the right of the Ukrainians to have
> > a preference.
>
> Most of Ukrainians give no one flying damn about the article. Because they fighting
> from day to day for bread. But some diaspora representatives instead of sending money
> to help people there express their patriotism in breaking other languages. Simple like
> that - to be a patriot for less than a penny.Bastards.

During our lessons of English at school we were taught that "the" in "the Ukraine" is
an exception rather than a rule.
I really don't care much whether English speaking public says "the Ukraine" or "Ukraine",
but logic leads to the latter usage, so Harlan is probably right.
Political situation often causes some language changes: I remember recently
in Ukrainian and Russian the name for Moldavia changed to Moldova,
the name for Byelorussiya changed to Byelorus - which is closer
to the names of th
e states in their proper languages.

As for the "bastards", I'd like to remind you: if you are angry, you are wrong.

Bonne chance,

Denis

=========================
Denis Tishchenko
Kiev, Ukraine
de...@geosantr.kiev.ua
=========================

AHetzer

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to

Please, look at the beginning of this thread in soc.culture.baltics. It
is no question of gender, but of the article. There are people in
Ukraine (perhaps abroad too), who want to forbid the article before the
country name Ukraine! They feel hurt, when Ukraine is used with the
definite article.
Vive LA Russie!

Éamonn McManus

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
gu...@clark.net@remove.this.part.before.sending writes:
> AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> >Vive LA France, vive LA Russie!
> Well, the situation in French is a little different. EVERY country is
> modified by an article in the same circumstances (such as when the
> country is the subject of a sentence), but the article is not
> generally considered part of the name.
> Le Mexique est en Amerique du Nord.
> La France est en Europe.
> La Chine est en Asie.

Not every country, in fact. There are a few exceptions, such as Israël,
Cuba, and Monaco, where the article is not used in these contexts. So
for instance, at
http://www.monaco.monte-carlo.mc/presentation/monaco2000/index.html
I found:
Monaco doit faire face à une contrainte majeure, la taille de son
territoire.
(where the same sentence about France would say "La France") but also:
...de nouvelles opportunités pour le Monaco du 3ème millénaire.

> The grammatical rules differ according to the gender of the country.
> To express the concept of being in or going to a county, the article
> is generally discarded and the preposition "en" is used for feminine
> country names

or names that begin with a vowel

> whereas the preposition "a" is combined with the
> article for masculine names.

Except for those non-article countries (à Cuba (feminine), à Monaco
(masculine), en Israël (masculine)).

,
Eamonn http://www.gr.opengroup.org/~emcmanus
"Soon all will be lovely"

F. Tereshchenko

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
In article <EwppL...@midway.uchicago.edu>,

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <6pcrp7$emu$1...@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
>F. Tereshchenko <fter...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>>In article <EwM5t...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <35B861...@uni-bremen.de>,
>>>AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>>>>David McDuff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 Jul 1998 12:17:25 GMT, hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >, that
>>>>> >the definite article signifies some 'provincial' or 'subordinate' status,
>>>>> >as in 'the Provence', 'the Great Plains', or 'the Midwest'
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose a closer parallel would be 'The Crimea'?
>>>>
>>>>And LA France, LA Suisse, LA Turquie ...
>>>
>>>That's French usage, not English. At least no English speaker I've ever
>>>met (native or otherwise) says "the France", "the Switzerland", etc.
>>>
>>>However, they do say "the Middle East", "the Midwest", "the Midlands",
>>>etc.--all regions, not states. I can completely understand how Ukrain-
>>>ians, touchy about Ukraine's treatment as a region for centuries, would
>>>want to reject this precedent.
>>>
>>>Similarly, note the preference of the Country-formerly-known-as-Zaire for
>>>"Congo" rather than "the Congo". "The Congo" is a region; "Congo" is a
>>>country. Similarly, "the Sudan" vs. "Sudan".
>>
>>What about THE Netherlands, THE United States, THE Gambia?
>
>What about them?
>
>"the Netherlands" was, for most of its existence, a region rather than a
>state.
>
>"the United States [of America]", like all generically qualified state
>names in English, requires an article. So "the Republic of France" but
>not *"the France". "The United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Northern
>Ireland]", but not *"the Great Britain", *"the Britain" or *"the England".
>(But "the Kingdom of England", "the Principality of Wales", etc.). "The
>Russian Federation" but not *"the Russia", etc. Significantly, the short
>form of the name (parallel to the others listed here) is "America", not
>*"the America".
>
>"The Gambia" is a true exception: It's the only unqualified country name
>in English I can think of that officially requires an article (unless you
>want to count the "el" in "El Salvador"). I don't understand, though, why
>one should expect "Ukraine" to follow the precedent of a solitary excep-

It's better to be exceptional than regular. Think about it: in all schools
all other the world teachers will say "Remember, The Ukraine requires
definite article!" Every student will know that this country exists and it
is so special that it even needs to be separately mentioned in all English
grammar textbooks. That was the first argument. The second is
traditionalistic one. The same language tradition that puts the article
before The Netherlands requires the article before The Ukraine.

Feodor

Marius Svenkerud

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>Robin or David wrote:

>> Interesting. I remember when first being taught German that three
>> countries *had* to have the articles attached: Die Schweiz, Die Turkei,
>> and Die Tschechoslovakei...

die Tschechoslowakei

>DER Irak, DER Sudan, DIE Slowakei (all on stressed -ei, as Walachei,

>Türkei etc.), [...] DER
>Kongo,

Which of the two countries is this used about?

>DIE USA (plural), DIE Niederlande.

Also plural.

Weiter: die Ukraine, der Iran, der Libanon, die Dominikanische Republik,
die Philippinen (plural, as are all groups of islands), die
USA/Vereinigten Staaten (plural).

By names of countries, landscapes, cities, towns, continents, and
islands, the definite article is always used if the name is masculine,
feminine, or plural, whereas it is only used when the name is closer
defined if the name is neutral (cf. some French names of countries.
"Monaco est un pays" - "le beau Monaco"). Examples: Der Balkan und die
Krim sind Halbinseln. Wir sind aus dem Haag/Den Haag. Die Pfalz liegt in
Deutschland, während die Bretagne in Frankreich liegt. Das moderne
Norwegen. Das Deutschland der Nachkriegszeit. Die Färöer sind ein Teil
des Dänischen Reiches.

Exceptions to this rule are Elsaß (Alsace), Allgäu (landscape in
Bavaria), and Breisgau (landscape in Baden-Wurtemberg). These names are
neutral - Breisgau may also be masculine - but always require the
definite article. Examples: Das Elsaß gehört jetzt zu Frankreich. Kempten
liegt im Allgäu.

Marius Svenkerud


D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
In article <35BBDCDE...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>,

Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>> >
>> >> >What about THE Netherlands, THE United States, THE Gambia?
>> >>
>> >> What about them?
>> >>
>> >> "the Netherlands" was, for most of its existence, a region rather than a
>> >> state.
>> >
>> > This is exactly the point - "for most of its existence, a region rather than a
>> >state" when one speaks about the Ukraine. One cannot put it better, thanks.
>>
>> But the Netherlands is apparently not so insecure about it, because
>> they haven't protested. (Their own name for their country is
>> "Nederland".) That doesn't negate the right of the Ukrainians to have
>> a preference.
>
> Most of Ukrainians give no one flying damn about the article. Because they fighting
>from day to day for bread. But some diaspora representatives instead of sending money
>to help people there express their patriotism in breaking other languages.

How on earth can you claim to know that the people who expouse the usage
of "Ukraine" without an article do nothing material to help their fellow
countrymen?

>Simple like that - to be a patriot for less than a penny.Bastards.

Even if what you are saying is true, it doesn't invalidate this usage.
For all I know, the Founding Father who suggested "United States of
America" might have been Benedict Arnold. That alone doesn't make it a
bad choice of a name.

AHetzer

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
Marius Svenkerud wrote:
>
> AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> >Robin or David wrote:
>
> >> Interesting. I remember when first being taught German that three
> >> countries *had* to have the articles attached: Die Schweiz, Die Turkei,
> >> and Die Tschechoslovakei...
>
> die Tschechoslowakei
>
> >DER Irak, DER Sudan, DIE Slowakei (all on stressed -ei, as Walachei,
> >TЭrkei etc.), [...] DER

> >Kongo,
>
> Which of the two countries is this used about?
>
> >DIE USA (plural), DIE Niederlande.
>
> Also plural.
>
> Weiter: die Ukraine, der Iran, der Libanon, die Dominikanische Republik,
> die Philippinen (plural, as are all groups of islands), die
> USA/Vereinigten Staaten (plural).
>
> By names of countries, landscapes, cities, towns, continents, and
> islands, the definite article is always used if the name is masculine,
> feminine, or plural, whereas it is only used when the name is closer
> defined if the name is neutral (cf. some French names of countries.
> "Monaco est un pays" - "le beau Monaco"). Examples: Der Balkan und die
> Krim sind Halbinseln. Wir sind aus dem Haag/Den Haag. Die Pfalz liegt in
> Deutschland, wДhrend die Bretagne in Frankreich liegt. Das moderne
> Norwegen. Das Deutschland der Nachkriegszeit. Die FДrЖer sind ein Teil
> des DДnischen Reiches.
>
> Exceptions to this rule are Elsaъ (Alsace), AllgДu (landscape in

> Bavaria), and Breisgau (landscape in Baden-Wurtemberg). These names are
> neutral - Breisgau may also be masculine - but always require the
> definite article. Examples: Das Elsaъ gehЖrt jetzt zu Frankreich. Kempten
> liegt im AllgДu.
>
> Marius Svenkerud


Phantastisch! Foreigners know German rules better than we do. However,
Libanon is problematic. DER Libanon is the mountain range, the State of
Lebanon may be used without article (in Libanon). There are some other
cases of variation (Schwankung), and I think this is due to the impact
of English via translations by news agencies.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:

> In article <35BBDCDE...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>,
> Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Most of Ukrainians give no one flying damn about the article. Because they fighting
> >from day to day for bread. But some diaspora representatives instead of sending money
> >to help people there express their patriotism in breaking other languages.
>
> How on earth can you claim to know that the people who expouse the usage
> of "Ukraine" without an article do nothing material to help their fellow
> countrymen?
>

Guess! I remember another similar example - when russian parlament spent couple of months
deciding how it should be written "Russia" and in brackets "Russian Federation" or
otherwise.

> >Simple like that - to be a patriot for less than a penny.Bastards.
>
> Even if what you are saying is true, it doesn't invalidate this usage.
>

Neither it validates it. It is those for whom the English is a profession have to define
whether the article is applicable to the case. Do you want that Russians start to scream
that the name "Russia" is wrong as well as "Moscow" , "Sibirea" etc. and push for
corresponding corrections? You cannot adjust a language each time a political conjucture
somewhere is changed, at least it's orwellian way to manage it.

VM

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to
In article <35BD1CA0...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>,

Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>
>> In article <35BBDCDE...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>,
>> Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Most of Ukrainians give no one flying damn about the article. Because they fighting
>> >from day to day for bread. But some diaspora representatives instead of sending money
>> >to help people there express their patriotism in breaking other languages.
>>
>> How on earth can you claim to know that the people who expouse the usage
>> of "Ukraine" without an article do nothing material to help their fellow
>> countrymen?
>>
>
>Guess!

You personally know every Ukrainian in the world?

[snip]


>> >Simple like that - to be a patriot for less than a penny.Bastards.
>>
>> Even if what you are saying is true, it doesn't invalidate this usage.
>>
>
>Neither it validates it. It is those for whom the English is a profession have to define
>whether the article is applicable to the case.

Not really. Neither usage is grammatically incorrect. It's a matter of
personal preference and if you think most Ukrainians don't care one way or
the other, you can bet even fewer English-speakers-at-large do.

In cases like this, where the majority has no preference, it makes more
sense to go along with the desires of a minority with strong feelings.

>Do you want that Russians start to scream
>that the name "Russia" is wrong as well as "Moscow" , "Sibirea" etc. and push for
>corresponding corrections? You cannot adjust a language each time a political conjucture
>somewhere is changed, at least it's orwellian way to manage it.

[snip]

So we should continue to call the CIS 'USSR'? Maybe 'Russia' should be
'Muscovy'? And the 'EU' the 'Roman Empire'?

Language merely reflects political realities; when those realities change,
languages follow suit. I don't see anything unnatural or objectionable a-
bout that.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to

From now please, because of my strong feelings replace Russia with "Rossiya", Moscow with
"Moskva", Sibiria with "Seebeer", CIS with "SNG", the rest of the list I'll post a little bit
later.

VM

AHetzer

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> So we should continue to call the CIS 'USSR'? Maybe 'Russia' should be
> 'Muscovy'? And the 'EU' the 'Roman Empire'?
>
> Language merely reflects political realities; when those realities change,
> languages follow suit. I don't see anything unnatural or objectionable a-
> bout that.

Dear colleague, now you missed the point. Those people in the former
Soviet sphere of influence may call themselves as they want to do. But
they cannot prescribe such silly things as Ukraine with or without
article (since in Ukrainian there is no article at all). They suppose,
that THE Ukraine means "part of something else", viz. the Russian
Empire, and they do not belong to this empire any more. I am not
competent to decide whether the alleged meaning "part of a larger
political entity" is correct, when using the English article. But I can
tell you that in German as well as in Romance languages the case is
quite different. The article does not express such connotation.

The other cases you quote (Russia vs. Muscovy etc.) are quite different.
Besides Macedonia vs. FYRoM no other former communist country did not
really change her name, but they want we use the foreign spelling (e. g.
Belarus, Moldova). This is analogous to Kampuchea vs. Cambodia/Cambodge
and Sri Lanka vs. Ceylon. In Europe, Greeks do not demand we write
Hellas or Ellada, and Albanians do not want we all should use Shqiperia,
when writing in Western languages. This is a fever peculiar to former
communist countries.

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to
In article <35BDA447...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>,

Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>> In article <35BD1CA0...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>,
>> Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> >D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>>
>> Not really. Neither usage is grammatically incorrect. It's a matter of
>> personal preference and if you think most Ukrainians don't care one way or
>> the other, you can bet even fewer English-speakers-at-large do.
>>
>> In cases like this, where the majority has no preference, it makes more
>> sense to go along with the desires of a minority with strong feelings.
>>
>> >Do you want that Russians start to scream
>> >that the name "Russia" is wrong as well as "Moscow" , "Sibirea" etc. and push for
>> >corresponding corrections? You cannot adjust a language each time a political conjucture
>> >somewhere is changed, at least it's orwellian way to manage it.
>> [snip]
>>
>> So we should continue to call the CIS 'USSR'? Maybe 'Russia' should be
>> 'Muscovy'? And the 'EU' the 'Roman Empire'?
>
>From now please, because of my strong feelings replace Russia with "Rossiya", Moscow with
>"Moskva", Sibiria with "Seebeer", CIS with "SNG", the rest of the list I'll post a little bit
>later.

In my future dealing with you, I will.

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to
In article <35BD8...@uni-bremen.de>, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> So we should continue to call the CIS 'USSR'? Maybe 'Russia' should be
>> 'Muscovy'? And the 'EU' the 'Roman Empire'?
>>
>> Language merely reflects political realities; when those realities change,
>> languages follow suit. I don't see anything unnatural or objectionable a-
>> bout that.
>
>Dear colleague, now you missed the point. Those people in the former
>Soviet sphere of influence may call themselves as they want to do. But
>they cannot prescribe such silly things as Ukraine with or without
>article (since in Ukrainian there is no article at all).

No one can prescribe English usage, at least not effectively. However,
just as an individual can request that one use only a certain spelling
or pronunciation of her name[*] , representatives of an organisation (such
as a government) can request that people use a certain form of their name.
No, they can't compell anyone to, but where I come from, acceding to such
requests is considered a matter of simple courtesy.

>They suppose,
>that THE Ukraine means "part of something else", viz. the Russian
>Empire, and they do not belong to this empire any more. I am not
>competent to decide whether the alleged meaning "part of a larger
>political entity" is correct, when using the English article. But I can
>tell you that in German as well as in Romance languages the case is
>quite different. The article does not express such connotation.

My response: Nu?

We all know that the rules governing the use of articles vary quite a bit
from language to language. Since we were only discussing the use of the
article *in English*, I don't see why the usage of other languages is re-
levant at all.

>The other cases you quote (Russia vs. Muscovy etc.) are quite different.
>Besides Macedonia vs. FYRoM no other former communist country did not
>really change her name, but they want we use the foreign spelling (e. g.
>Belarus, Moldova). This is analogous to Kampuchea vs. Cambodia/Cambodge
>and Sri Lanka vs. Ceylon. In Europe, Greeks do not demand we write
>Hellas or Ellada, and Albanians do not want we all should use Shqiperia,
>when writing in Western languages. This is a fever peculiar to former
>communist countries.

As far as I'm concerned, it's their prerogative, just as it's the pre-
rogative of Africa nations to alter toponyms every time they have a change
of government. It amazes me how people carry on about having to write
"Belarus" instead of "B(y)elorussia" or "Congo" instead of "Zaire" instead
of "Congo". As if this were all some great hardship.

BTW, the Africa cases (Gambia, Sudan, Congo) are exactly parallel. In the
first, they insist on the article; in the other two, they insist it be
left off. Post-Communism has nothing to do with it.


[*] Or usage. I'm constantly asking not to be alphabetised under 'v'.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:

> In article <35BDA447...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>,
> Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> In cases like this, where the majority has no preference, it makes more
> >> sense to go along with the desires of a minority with strong feelings.
> >>
> >> >Do you want that Russians start to scream
> >> >that the name "Russia" is wrong as well as "Moscow" , "Sibirea" etc. and push for
> >> >corresponding corrections? You cannot adjust a language each time a political conjucture
> >> >somewhere is changed, at least it's orwellian way to manage it.

> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> So we should continue to call the CIS 'USSR'? Maybe 'Russia' should be
> >> 'Muscovy'? And the 'EU' the 'Roman Empire'?
> >

> >From now please, because of my strong feelings replace Russia with "Rossiya", Moscow with
> >"Moskva", Sibiria with "Seebeer", CIS with "SNG", the rest of the list I'll post a little bit
> >later.
>
> In my future dealing with you, I will.
>

No thanks, I am not that crazy, but I think you got the flavor of what kind of chaos can evolve
if a misplaced patriotizm would dictate corrections to other languages. I scared even to think
about the chinese case.

VM

Xhosa Nkose

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to

Vladimir Makarenko wrote in message
<35BE9EA0...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>...
>

>> >> >Do you want that Russians start to scream
>> >> >that the name "Russia" is wrong as well as "Moscow" , "Sibirea" etc.
and push for
>> >> >corresponding corrections? You cannot adjust a language each time a
political conjucture
>> >> >somewhere is changed, at least it's orwellian way to manage it.

..


>> >>
>> >> So we should continue to call the CIS 'USSR'? Maybe 'Russia' should
be
>> >> 'Muscovy'? And the 'EU' the 'Roman Empire'?
>> >
>> >From now please, because of my strong feelings replace Russia with
"Rossiya", Moscow with
>> >"Moskva", Sibiria with "Seebeer", CIS with "SNG", the rest of the list
I'll post a little bit
>> >later.


From now on you shall say the name of My people Xhosa starting with click
sound as it should be pronounced. Those of you who will defy my order under
false pretext of inability to click with your tongues, shall be declared
racists and the mortal enemies of Xhosa people.

Nkosi, sikelel' i' Afrika

Xhosa i'Nkosi

Keith C. Ivey

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
de...@midway.uchicago.edu (D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:

>No one can prescribe English usage, at least not effectively. However,
>just as an individual can request that one use only a certain spelling
>or pronunciation of her name[*] , representatives of an organisation (such
>as a government) can request that people use a certain form of their name.

The cases of individuals and organizations are not really parallel,
since the subject is foreign names for organizations, particularly
countries. Few individuals, other than the pope and some historical
figures, have names that get translated into other languages.

[...]


>[*] Or usage. I'm constantly asking not to be alphabetised under 'v'.

So all databases of names should have a separate field to indicate the
individual's alphabetization preference? And when I'm looking for
"von Brighoff" I have to try "V" *and* "B" in case the von Brighoff
I'm looking for doesn't share your preference? And maybe some people
whose names contain "ö" want it alphabetized as "oe" and others as "o"
and others as "ö" at the end of the alphabet.

Isn't the whole point of alphabetizing to allow people to find things,
rather than to cater to the individual preferences of the people whose
names are being alphabetized? Isn't it better to have a standard?

Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org>
http://cpcug.org/user/kcivey/
Washington, DC

J Fisher

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff (de...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: In article <35BDA447...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>,
: Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:

: >From now please, because of my strong feelings replace Russia


: >with "Rossiya", Moscow with "Moskva", Sibiria with "Seebeer", CIS
: >with "SNG", the rest of the list I'll post a little bit later.

:
: In my future dealing with you, I will.

Suppose he made it compulsory for you to use the Cyrillic
alphabet when mentioning these places, instead of insulting
his country and culture by using a transcription?

--
--John

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
In article <35bf87d...@newsreader.digex.net>,

Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> wrote:
>de...@midway.uchicago.edu (D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff) wrote:
>
>>No one can prescribe English usage, at least not effectively. However,
>>just as an individual can request that one use only a certain spelling
>>or pronunciation of her name[*] , representatives of an organisation (such
>>as a government) can request that people use a certain form of their name.
>
>The cases of individuals and organizations are not really parallel,
>since the subject is foreign names for organizations, particularly
>countries. Few individuals, other than the pope and some historical
>figures, have names that get translated into other languages.

I can't agree. I've known too many immigrants to the United States who
go by monikers that bear only a faint resemblance to their actual names.
Names get translated (or just deformed) all the time.

>[...]
>>[*] Or usage. I'm constantly asking not to be alphabetised under 'v'.
>
>So all databases of names should have a separate field to indicate the
>individual's alphabetization preference? And when I'm looking for
>"von Brighoff" I have to try "V" *and* "B" in case the von Brighoff
>I'm looking for doesn't share your preference? And maybe some people
>whose names contain "ö" want it alphabetized as "oe" and others as "o"
>and others as "ö" at the end of the alphabet.
>
>Isn't the whole point of alphabetizing to allow people to find things,
>rather than to cater to the individual preferences of the people whose
>names are being alphabetized? Isn't it better to have a standard?

Having a standard is good. Having a standard that accounts for common
variances in usage is better.

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
In article <EwupEF.41L.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>,

I'd explain that my email can't handle Cyrillic. If that's not good
enough for him, then I suppose we'd part company.

I don't understand why everyone is attempting a reductio ad absurdum here.
I don't remember saying that everyone's whims have to be catered to, just
that if someone has a strong preference in matters that really aren't im-
portant to you and it's no more trouble to go along with that than not, I
believe it courteous to go along. It's like eating a particular cuisine
you're not tremendously fond of because it's what your lunch partner pre-
fers. That just seems reasonable to me.

mike

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to

D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote in message ...

Same here. I don't think it is corteous to teach people in foreign countries
how to say the name of your country. Would you like all of a sudden to begin
to call Japanese Nihonjin (with the right pronounciation), Chinese
Zhongguoren (with the right pronounciation and correct tones) etc. etc.?
And again, can you make a clicking sound in Xhosa?
Chinese call USA Meiguo, there is no way they can say America, these
sillables just don't exist in Chinese language (A mei li jia ?). So, I'd
just ignore those who would teach me how to speak English unless they are
educated native English speakers.

Mike

Mike


John Fisher

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
In article <Ewv73...@midway.uchicago.edu>, "D. Edward Gund v.
Brighoff" <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes

>I don't understand why everyone is attempting a reductio ad absurdum here.
>I don't remember saying that everyone's whims have to be catered to, just
>that if someone has a strong preference in matters that really aren't im-
>portant to you and it's no more trouble to go along with that than not, I
>believe it courteous to go along. It's like eating a particular cuisine
>you're not tremendously fond of because it's what your lunch partner pre-
>fers. That just seems reasonable to me.

If it was just me, one-to-one with another person, then I'd agree. I
just don't feel quite so compliant to the Ukrainian government telling
me how to speak English.

I've nothing against that country at all. I felt just the same way
about the Chinese government instructing me that I am not to use the
English names for Chinese cities, such as Canton, or even to use the
name "Tibet".

--
John Fisher jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk
Drummond is an independent site; its opinions are my own

Anthony West

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
John Fisher (jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <Ewv73...@midway.uchicago.edu>, "D. Edward Gund v.
: Brighoff" <de...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes

: >I don't understand why everyone is attempting a reductio ad absurdum here.
: >I don't remember saying that everyone's whims have to be catered to, just
: >that if someone has a strong preference in matters that really aren't im-
: >portant to you and it's no more trouble to go along with that than not, I
: >believe it courteous to go along. It's like eating a particular cuisine
: >you're not tremendously fond of because it's what your lunch partner pre-
: >fers. That just seems reasonable to me.

: If it was just me, one-to-one with another person, then I'd agree. I
: just don't feel quite so compliant to the Ukrainian government telling
: me how to speak English.

: I've nothing against that country at all. I felt just the same way
: about the Chinese government instructing me that I am not to use the
: English names for Chinese cities, such as Canton, or even to use the
: name "Tibet".

My sentiments exactly.

Part of the blessing, as well as the curse, of every language is
the holy grammatical mission of irregularity. It's not my job, as
speaker of Language X, to tell a speaker of Language Y that he is
speaking Language Y wrong because Language Y is irregular. Even on
the matter of MY NAME in Language Y (if I am a Language X speaker).

In English, the names of most countries occur without the definite
article but the names of a few do, for a host of unrelated, irregular
historical reasons. Countries that begin (or may correctly begin)
with a definite article are The...
Gambia
United States of America (U.S.A.)
Philippines
United Kingdom (U.K.)
Dominican Republic
Czech Republic
Yemen
Maldives
Ukraine
Solomon Islands
United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.)
(have I forgotten any?).

Welcome to the irregularity of the English language. If you
don't like it, make the U.N. speak Esperanto instead. But
don't attempt to change my English for me.

I am much more patient (why, I cannot explain - it's another
damnable irregularity) with new regimes who want me to RE-
PRONOUNCE the names of their nations with phoneme groups that
do not exist in English. E.g., /mja-/ in Myanmar and /sr-/ in
Sri Lanka. It's a silly thrill, like going "/Ox/" instead of
"/ou/" to fake a Scotch accent.

But any attempt to alter the rules of usage of something as
basic as article employment (even when they make no sense) in
my native language, annoys me greatly and is needlessly hard
to adapt to in fluent speech.

If anybody in the Ukraine doesn't like the way I speak English
in the United States, I will let them reform English on the
day after they let me reform Ukrainian.

-Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org

Mark Rosenfelder

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
In article <xGeZ3GA5...@drummond.demon.co.uk>,

John Fisher <jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I've nothing against that country at all. I felt just the same way
>about the Chinese government instructing me that I am not to use the
>English names for Chinese cities, such as Canton, or even to use the
>name "Tibet".

The Chinese government is sending *you* such instructions? Geez, I guess
my instructions got lost in the mail.

Mark Rosenfelder

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
In article <6pokmn$i4v$1...@osh2.datasync.com>, mike <ki...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Same here. I don't think it is corteous to teach people in foreign countries
>how to say the name of your country. Would you like all of a sudden to begin
>to call Japanese Nihonjin (with the right pronounciation), Chinese
>Zhongguoren (with the right pronounciation and correct tones) etc. etc.?
>And again, can you make a clicking sound in Xhosa?
>Chinese call USA Meiguo, there is no way they can say America, these
>sillables just don't exist in Chinese language (A mei li jia ?).

Sure they do: A mer yi ka. (The -r there is a suffix, part of the
standard language, though non-Beijingers may have trouble with it.
The y in yi is just orthographic; it's pronounced [i].)

>So, I'd
>just ignore those who would teach me how to speak English unless they are
>educated native English speakers.

It seems you're receiving instructions direct from the Ukrainians too.
And I though the spam in my mailbox was bad.

Why people get so exercised about this I don't know. Calm down; no one's
making you say Zhongguo, Nihon, or for that matter Beijing or Myanmar--
certainly not nefarious, *incourteous* furriners.

Geographic names change all the time, for all sorts of reasons. I have a
1943 map of Asia here with names like Cawnpore, Urga (Ulan Bator),
Taihoku, Natoena, Peiping, Pinkiang, Nikolaevsk, Luangprabang, Saishu To
(Quelpart), Dairen, Tourane, Pnompenh, Pondichery, Madura, Batavia,
Bandjermasin, and Nanumanga. In a 1980 atlas-- prepared by educated
native English speakers, mind you-- these have metamorphosed to Kanpur,
Ulaanbaatar, T'ai-pei, Bunguran (Natuna), Beijing (Peking), Harbin,
Nikolayevsk, Luang Prabang, Cheju Do, Lu"da, Da Nang, Phnom Penh,
Pondicherry, Madurai, Jakarta, Banjarmasin, and Nanomana.

There's something to be said for continuity; that's why we still say, and
will continue to say, China, Russia, and Egypt instead of Zhongguo,
Rossiya, and al-Misr. And if you like, you can still say Peking,
the Ukraine, Cawnpore, and Bandjermasin. But all you need to justify
doing so is your personal preference; there's really no need to invent
diktats from uneducated aliens, or pretend that there is some mythic
inalterability about how we refer to places in English.

bga...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
In article <35BDA447...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>,
Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
>
> > In article <35BD1CA0...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>,
> > Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <35BBDCDE...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu>,

> > >> Vladimir Makarenko <ma...@mcphy3.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Most of Ukrainians give no one flying damn about the article. Because
they fighting
> > >> >from day to day for bread. But some diaspora representatives instead of
sending money
> > >> >to help people there express their patriotism in breaking other
languages.
> > >>
> > >> How on earth can you claim to know that the people who expouse the usage
> > >> of "Ukraine" without an article do nothing material to help their fellow
> > >> countrymen?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Guess!
> >
> > You personally know every Ukrainian in the world?
> >
> > [snip]
> > >> >Simple like that - to be a patriot for less than a penny.Bastards.
> > >>
> > >> Even if what you are saying is true, it doesn't invalidate this usage.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Neither it validates it. It is those for whom the English is a profession
have to define
> > >whether the article is applicable to the case.
> >
> > Not really. Neither usage is grammatically incorrect. It's a matter of
> > personal preference and if you think most Ukrainians don't care one way or
> > the other, you can bet even fewer English-speakers-at-large do.
> >
> > In cases like this, where the majority has no preference, it makes more
> > sense to go along with the desires of a minority with strong feelings.
> >
> > >Do you want that Russians start to scream
> > >that the name "Russia" is wrong as well as "Moscow" , "Sibirea" etc. and
push for
> > >corresponding corrections? You cannot adjust a language each time a
political conjucture
> > >somewhere is changed, at least it's orwellian way to manage it.
> > [snip]

> >
> > So we should continue to call the CIS 'USSR'? Maybe 'Russia' should be
> > 'Muscovy'? And the 'EU' the 'Roman Empire'?
> >
>
> From now please, because of my strong feelings replace Russia with "Rossiya",
Moscow with
> "Moskva", Sibiria with "Seebeer", CIS with "SNG", the rest of the list I'll
Actually, the name Siberia derives from Mongol word Shavar meaning "swamp".
Hence, the politically correct thing to do would be to use original version.


>post a little bit
> later.
>

> VM


>
> > Language merely reflects political realities; when those realities change,
> > languages follow suit. I don't see anything unnatural or objectionable a-
> > bout that.

> > --
> > Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
> > (de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
> > /____\ gegen die Kunst!
>
>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

bga...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
In article <35BD8...@uni-bremen.de>,

AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > So we should continue to call the CIS 'USSR'? Maybe 'Russia' should be
> > 'Muscovy'? And the 'EU' the 'Roman Empire'?
> >
> > Language merely reflects political realities; when those realities change,
> > languages follow suit. I don't see anything unnatural or objectionable a-
> > bout that.
>
> Dear colleague, now you missed the point. Those people in the former
> Soviet sphere of influence may call themselves as they want to do. But
> they cannot prescribe such silly things as Ukraine with or without
> article (since in Ukrainian there is no article at all). They suppose,

> that THE Ukraine means "part of something else", viz. the Russian
> Empire, and they do not belong to this empire any more. I am not
> competent to decide whether the alleged meaning "part of a larger
> political entity" is correct, when using the English article. But I can
> tell you that in German as well as in Romance languages the case is
> quite different. The article does not express such connotation.
>
> The other cases you quote (Russia vs. Muscovy etc.) are quite different.
> Besides Macedonia vs. FYRoM no other former communist country did not
> really change her name, but they want we use the foreign spelling (e. g.
> Belarus, Moldova). This is analogous to Kampuchea vs. Cambodia/Cambodge
> and Sri Lanka vs. Ceylon. In Europe, Greeks do not demand we write
> Hellas or Ellada, and Albanians do not want we all should use Shqiperia,
> when writing in Western languages. This is a fever peculiar to former
> communist countries.
Certainly, English language would be enriched with new words like Sakartvelo
(Georgia), Magyarorszsag(Hungary), Eesti(Estonia) etc.

It would very amusing to force English imperialists to pronounce Khal'mg
Tangch(Kalmyck Republic) every time they refer to this steppe republic.

AHetzer

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff wrote:
snip

>

> Having a standard is good. Having a standard that accounts for common
> variances in usage is better.

In Germany, we have different standards for umlaut. In Brockhaus
Encyclopedia (and similar reference books), oe, ue, ae are treated as o,
u, a (e. g. Goethe = Göthe under Gothe). In libraries, always umlauts
with the dots are treated as if written oe, ue, ae (in the telefone
directory too, I guess). In German last names, the particle "von" as
well as Dutch "van" are permutated, e. g. "Goethe, von", however De
Boer, La Place etc, if written separately, are alphabetically treated as
if written DeBoer, LaPlace etc. This stuff is so difficult, that
librarians have to be trained specially.

AHetzer

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
Anthony West wrote:
>
snip

> I am much more patient (why, I cannot explain - it's another
> damnable irregularity) with new regimes who want me to RE-
> PRONOUNCE the names of their nations with phoneme groups that
> do not exist in English. E.g., /mja-/ in Myanmar and /sr-/ in
> Sri Lanka. It's a silly thrill, like going "/Ox/" instead of
> "/ou/" to fake a Scotch accent.
>
>

Sri Lanka is an example, what happens, if diacritics are omitted. In
Russian, it is transcribed SHri Lanka, and I suppose that the accent on
s is omitted in Romanization. Earlier, it was /si'lon/, and everybody
knew, how to pronounce the name. Moreover, I think that /si'lon/ is
nearer to the real demotic pronunciation in Ceylon.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
bga...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> Certainly, English language would be enriched with new words like Sakartvelo
> (Georgia), Magyarorszsag(Hungary), Eesti(Estonia) etc.
>
> It would very amusing to force English imperialists to pronounce Khal'mg
> Tangch(Kalmyck Republic) every time they refer to this steppe republic.

That doesn't happen very often.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net

Jerry Spencer Mings

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to

<big snip>

Proclimation
Hereafter and for all time, the inhabitants
of England Nuevo in the US are to cease and desist
from refering to the nation of Cuba as
CUE-burr and use the correct pronounciation
of KOO-ba.

Fidel

<.........***>
/
/
/
O
Sarcasometer

And now a word from our Inuit friends.......

Wallace J.McLean

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to

Anthony West (aaw...@netnews.CritPath.Org) writes:
> In English, the names of most countries occur without the definite
> article but the names of a few do, for a host of unrelated, irregular
> historical reasons. Countries that begin (or may correctly begin)
> with a definite article are The...
> Gambia
> United States of America (U.S.A.)
> Philippines
> United Kingdom (U.K.)
> Dominican Republic
> Czech Republic
> Yemen
> Maldives
> Ukraine
> Solomon Islands
> United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.)
> (have I forgotten any?).

Not countries, but both Yukon and Labrador are frequently prefixed by the
The. In the case of the latter, it is not done by people who actually live
there, but by Newfoundlanders.


--
There's more to life than books, you know (but not much more.)
CONSTITUTION OF Nfld. and Lab.: http://www.freenet.carleton.ca/~ag737
KILL BEAUDRY BOULEVARD! -- DEMOLISH THE NCC!

Erland Sommarskog

unread,
Aug 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/1/98
to
A Hetzer (het...@uni-bremen.de) skriver:

>DER Irak, DER Sudan, DIE Slowakei (all on stressed -ei, as Walachei,
>Türkei etc.), DIE Tschechei (now outdated; politically correct:
>Tschechien without article, as Indien and all the like on -ien), DER
>Kongo, DIE USA (plural), DIE Niederlande. Thus, the article is
>predictable in German, when the ending is -ei, whereas -ien never has
>the article.
>
>Generally speaking: in Romance languages the article seems to be
>obligatory in (almost) all cases, in German it is a little bit less, and
>in English almost never. In Slavic languages there is no article
>(besides Bulgarian/Macedonian), therefore the question does not arise
>there.

For what it's worth, some lines on the situation in Swedish. In Swedish
you don't really know if there is an article or not, as the article in
Swedish is a suffix. Here is a list of some Swedish country names:

Rumänien
Armenien
Mongoliet
Sovjetunionen
Nederländerna
Spanien
Lettland
Ukraina
Turkiet
Polen

Now, the definitive article in Swedish is -en or -et in singular, so
it looks like we have a bunch, don't we? But of course -ien in the
names above is the same as -ia in English and has as far as I know
nothing to do with definitive articles. Possibly historically, but
certainly not in the living language. The same thing applies to
-iet. The same goes for -en in Polen (but -en in "Nordpolen" is
a definitive article, but they are not even pronounced the same).

Then again -en in Sovjetunionen and -erna in Nederländerna are
definitive articles. But this is because the organization of
the state is included in the name, or because the name is plural.
These kind of names always get a definitive article, including
Vatikanstaten.

So in this regard Swedish is quite like English. But we have or
"the Ukraine" to! Now, Ukraine never gets a definitive article, but
you can hear "Amerikat" from time to time, although it is mainly
colloquial, and today mainly a bit archaic, like you've been
reading too many books by Wilhem Moberg. There might be a few
more, but no one is part of the standard language as far as I can
recall. Hm, well, that would be Vatikanen without the -staten
suffix, but then you are not really talking about the country
anymore.

--
Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, som...@algonet.se

Chris Dearlove

unread,
Aug 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/5/98
to
Anthony West (aaw...@netnews.CritPath.Org) wrote:
: Countries that begin (or may correctly begin)

: with a definite article are The...
: Gambia
: United States of America (U.S.A.)
: Philippines
: United Kingdom (U.K.)
: Dominican Republic
: Czech Republic
: Yemen
: Maldives
: Ukraine
: Solomon Islands
: United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.)
: (have I forgotten any?).

Probably several others that are descriptions, like the Central African
Republic (if it's still called that) or full formal names of contries.
Island groups often get the, so the Bahamas. The interesting ones on
your list are Gambia, Yemen, Ukraine to which I can add Lebanon and
that Argentina used to be (maybe still is in some quarters) referred
to as the Argentine. I've wondered before now why, is there an answer?

--
Christopher Dearlove

pri...@sympatico.ca

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:52:53 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
wrote:

>Please, look at the beginning of this thread in soc.culture.baltics. It
>is no question of gender, but of the article. There are people in
>Ukraine (perhaps abroad too), who want to forbid the article before the
>country name Ukraine! They feel hurt, when Ukraine is used with the
>definite article. =
>

I am really surprised that there are people still discussing this
matter. Ukraine, as a sovereign and independent nation has the right
to decide whether it is to be named, in the English language, as
"Ukraine" or "the Ukraine" and it has decided the former. Period.
Also, Ukraine has decided to name its capital city as "Kyiv" and that
is how it should be named in the English language. Obviously anyone is
free to name a country or a city as he or she wants, but that does not
make it right. Official documents and treaties between Ukraine and
English speaking countries use proper names, and that's what counts.

GP


Jukka Korpela

unread,
Aug 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/8/98
to
On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 02:08:06 GMT, pri...@sympatico.ca wrote:

>Ukraine, as a sovereign and independent nation has the right
>to decide whether it is to be named, in the English language, as
>"Ukraine" or "the Ukraine" and it has decided the former. Period.

With due respect to the Ukraine and Ukrainian people, I must say that
they cannot control the English language, or any other language for
that matter. Naturally, the authorities can lay down and enforce rules
on the languages used e.g. in official contexts within the country. It
is normal policy that authorities try to unify such things--within
their jurisdiction. But worldwide, ukases don't work.

Strong feelings are often associated with country names. The fact
still is that languages live lifes of their own, and it is ultimately
the speakers of a language who decide, by their speaking and writing,
how things are named in the language. There is a lot of mysticism
involved, I suppose: the ancient idea that whoever names something
somehow gains possession of it or control over it.

I wonder why "the Ukraine" as opposite to "Ukraine" raises political
emotions. The English language has funny rules with strange exceptions
for the use of definite articles--I'm afraid I'll never learn them
properly. Consulting a grammar book I should have learned well at
school, I now learn that I should write "the Harz", "the Argentine"
(_or_ "Argentina" without article!), "the Sudan", "The Hague" (with
capital "T"!). Confusing, isn't it? But attempts to change such things
by saying that a nation has decided something will just add to the
confusion, making some people use one form while others keep using
another.

>Also, Ukraine has decided to name its capital city as "Kyiv" and that
>is how it should be named in the English language.

I suppose you mean that "Kyiv" is the preferred transliterarion of the
Ukrainian name. By the way, is there a standard or draft standard for
transliterating Ukrainian into Latin alphabet? As we know, there is an
international standard for transliterating Russian, but it is rarely
used--languages keep using their own traditional systems. It might be
possible to establish a better situation for the Ukrainian language
due to lack of established national practices.

Personally, I don't see a big difference between "Kyiv" and "Kiev" (or
"Kiova", which is an old Finnish form of the name, although Communists
often used "Kiev", sometimes saying it's the only _right_ form). Most
people have little idea of how "Kyiv" is to be pronounced. Why should
one change a name form which is well-established and well-known and
fulfills its communicative purpose?

>Official documents and treaties between Ukraine and
>English speaking countries use proper names, and that's what counts.

Counts in what way? Official documents often use expressions which
appear in official documents only.

--
Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/ or http://yucca.hut.fi/yucca.html

pri...@sympatico.ca

unread,
Aug 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/9/98
to
On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 17:03:16 GMT, Jukka....@hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
wrote:


>With due respect to the Ukraine and Ukrainian people, I must say that
>they cannot control the English language, or any other language for
>that matter. Naturally, the authorities can lay down and enforce rules
>on the languages used e.g. in official contexts within the country. It
>is normal policy that authorities try to unify such things--within
>their jurisdiction. But worldwide, ukases don't work.

Please don't be so patronizing. I graduated from an English University
in Montreal (McGill) and I can assure you that my knowledge of the
English language is quite adequate. The naming of Ukraine as "Ukraine"
or "the Ukraine" has nothing to do with the English language, which,
by the way, is very flexible in this regard. It has everything to do
with toponymy. Every country has a toponymic commission or similar
body which periodically reviews the names of cities, places or the
country for that matter, and decides how they should be named. Because
English has become an international language of business and
communication, this is usually done in the local language and in
English. The decisions of the commission are then approved by the
government and are communicated internationally. No one is forced to
use them and often it takes time before the new names are widely
adopted. However, those who deal with the country in question, in this
case Ukraine, will normally use the proper names or appear to be
ignorant or insensitive.

When the Chinese changed the name of their capilal city from Peking to
Beijing, some did not accept the change very readily. However, if you
sent a letter to Peking, the Chinese would return it to you with the
indication that there is no such city in China. This helped quite a
bit to convert the undecided.

Also, as was mentioned in this discussion by Daniel von Brighoff,
there are countries like The Gambia, who wish to have the definite
article "the" in front of their country's name. No one is telling them
that this is grammatically incorrect or that they should not change
the English language. If they want their country to be called "The
Gambia" so be it, and it is merely common courtesy to write it
properly. Those who don't are considered to be boorish or uneducated.

GP

Anthony West

unread,
Aug 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/9/98
to
pri...@sympatico.ca wrote:
: On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 17:03:16 GMT, Jukka....@hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
: wrote:

: >With due respect to the Ukraine and Ukrainian people, I must say that
: >they cannot control the English language, or any other language for
: >that matter. Naturally, the authorities can lay down and enforce rules
: >on the languages used e.g. in official contexts within the country. It
: >is normal policy that authorities try to unify such things--within
: >their jurisdiction. But worldwide, ukases don't work.

: The naming of Ukraine as "Ukraine"

Boorishness refers specifically to committing offending acts
against *individuals*. E.g., even though the government has
registered my name as "Anthony," if I wish to be addressed by
the nickname "Tony" (I don't actually care), it would be boorish
of someone to adhere to government usage.

Governments are not individuals; they do not have souls or spirits
that can be offended. Thus there can be no requirement of etiquette
that one should always obey the government before pronouncing the
name of a person or place.

Indeed, in some cases it may be boorish to *obey* the government.
Take Burma, or Myanmar. The same government that "changed" this
nation's English name has also trampled on the aspirations of
most Burmese citizens (or should I call them Myanmartyrs?). It
is widely hated by its subject-victims. Why should I, who am
not subject to it in any way, pay any attention to what it says
about my own native tongue?

It might be smart for me to use the term "Myanmar" when mailing
a letter to Burma, but that would not make me one whit more
educated.

I had a tenant once who was a national of a loser regime that
was addicted to name-changing. He was a Zairean at the time;
although he had been born a Congolese; now, assuming he has
survived his government's misrule, he is a Congolese again.

Mobutu's Zaire didn't just change the names of nations and
places: it changed *people's* names as well. Thus, my polished
francophone tenant Omer Mvele received a letter from the
government one day informing him that his Christian name was
no longer Omer, which he had been called since his birth; it
was now Mwamba, a name free of then-hated (by the government,
at least) European influence. But Omer called himself Omer,
when speaking English.

Etiquette enters in only when speaking with actual Congolese,
or Ukrainians, or whomever. And it is intrinsically two-sided.
If I find that a specific Ukrainian wants me to say "[0] Ukraine,"
then our conversation will be pleasanter if I do so. Since my
utterance "[The] Ukraine" contains no intended insult, then if he
refrains from manufacturing an imagined insult our conversation
will also be pleasanter.

Tony West
Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org

Jukka Korpela

unread,
Aug 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/9/98
to
On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 00:42:42 GMT, pri...@sympatico.ca wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 17:03:16 GMT, Jukka....@hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
>wrote:
>
>>With due respect to the Ukraine and Ukrainian people, I must say that
>>they cannot control the English language

- -
>Please don't be so patronizing. I graduated - -

I made no statement about your use or understanding of English, so
your graduation is immaterial. But your statement


> The naming of Ukraine as "Ukraine"
> or "the Ukraine" has nothing to do with the English language

shows that no matter what you learned has been, in this area, been
overrun by political emotions. Of course the _English_ name of the
Ukraine is part of the English language.

>When the Chinese changed the name of their capilal city from Peking to
>Beijing,

I didn't know they did _that_. I thought they just expressed the
opinion that "Beijing" should be used as the transcription of the
Chinese name, as part of favoring a particular system of
transcription. Linguistically, that transcription is hardly better
than the old one--I bet most people outside China have little idea of
how the name is _pronounced_ in Chinese. Probably most people will try
to say it according to the rules of the orthography of one's own
native language, so a new confusion has been created.

> some did not accept the change very readily. However, if you
>sent a letter to Peking, the Chinese would return it to you with the
>indication that there is no such city in China. This helped quite a
>bit to convert the undecided.

That might be efficient for making people use that Latinization when
sending letters to China. It is also extremely stupid, and I don't
expect it to increase China's foreign trade, but obviously they don't
care. I wonder when they will require that "China" must be replaced by
their favorite Latinization of the official name of China in Chinese.

China's capital is still called "Peking" in normal language in Western
countries, though. Political pressure has its limits.

> If they want their country to be called "The
>Gambia" so be it, and it is merely common courtesy to write it
>properly. Those who don't are considered to be boorish or uneducated.

How ridiculous can you get? Assume some country declared their country
to have an official name like "The Aybil, Land of Heros, which will
send Yankees to hell!". Would you still hold your opinion? There _are_
countries which include or might include a lot of politics into their
"official names". Even if some officials and people would regard it as
best to use those names in diplomacy and things like that, luckily
most of us can just relax and use the names we are familiar with. The
basic job of a name is to act as a name, which is widely recognized,
hopefully with the same denotation. _Any_ replacement of an
established name therefore involves a major problem, and should be
done in exceptional cases only. And this also applies to names of
countries in various languages. Some changes might be reasonable to
do, especially if they involve removal of politically colored names in
favor of older traditional names. (Things like replacing "Leningrad"
by "St. Petersburg" or "Pietari" or whatever modification of the
current Russian name suits our language--although you of course would
not need to change back if you were one of the few people who kept
using the traditional names all the time!)

Antonio

unread,
Aug 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/9/98
to
Jukka Korpela wrote:

> I wonder why "the Ukraine" as opposite to "Ukraine" raises political
> emotions. The English language has funny rules with strange exceptions
> for the use of definite articles--I'm afraid I'll never learn them

> properly (...)

Portuguese has very complex rules regarding the using of the article with
toponyms and ethnonyms. As far as I can remember, the only countries with
no article (nor gender!) at all are Cuba and our former colonies (not all
of them) and things get even more complex when _em_ 'in' enters the scene
and the article may disappear or not (_na_, _no_).
--
am - read 'untawnew', not 'entonio'


pri...@sympatico.ca

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to
On 9 Aug 1998 15:54:39 GMT, aaw...@netnews.CritPath.Org (Anthony West)
wrote:


>: The naming of Ukraine as "Ukraine"
>: or "the Ukraine" has nothing to do with the English language, which,
>: by the way, is very flexible in this regard. It has everything to do
>: with toponymy. Every country has a toponymic commission or similar
>: body which periodically reviews the names of cities, places or the
>: country for that matter, and decides how they should be named. Because
>: English has become an international language of business and
>: communication, this is usually done in the local language and in
>: English. The decisions of the commission are then approved by the
>: government and are communicated internationally. No one is forced to
>: use them and often it takes time before the new names are widely
>: adopted. However, those who deal with the country in question, in this
>: case Ukraine, will normally use the proper names or appear to be
>: ignorant or insensitive.
>

> it is merely common courtesy to write it
>: properly. Those who don't are considered to be boorish or uneducated.

>Boorishness refers specifically to committing offending acts
>against *individuals*. E.g., even though the government has
>registered my name as "Anthony," if I wish to be addressed by
>the nickname "Tony" (I don't actually care), it would be boorish
>of someone to adhere to government usage.

I don't reeally understand your point. If you don't like the word
"boorish", I can change it to "insensitive", "rude", "impolite",
"uncourteous", "crass", or something of that sort. I used the word
"boorish" because I remembered an article that I read in a leading
publication (either Time magazine or The Foreign Affairs), in the
spring of 1995 when President Clinton visited Ukraine. It was reported
that prior to the trip, Clinton and his entourage were briefed not to
use "the Ukraine" while in Ukraine, because this may be considered as
"boorish" by the Ukrainians. In the Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,
it is stated: "BOORISH implies rudeness of manner due to
insensitiveness to others' feelings and unwillingness to be
agreeable". I think this fits the situation perfectly.

Although in the past it was common to use "the Ukraine", today all
major newspapers, magazines, atlases, dictionaries, almanacs, etc.,
properly call Ukraine as "Ukraine", which is also its official name at
the United Nations. Thus, it is not a question of one government
decreeing that it shall be so called, but the acceptance thereof by
the international community.


>
>Governments are not individuals; they do not have souls or spirits
>that can be offended. Thus there can be no requirement of etiquette
>that one should always obey the government before pronouncing the
>name of a person or place.

Your distinction between the government and the people is rather
tenuous. In Ukraine, people elect the government and, therefore, the
latter represents the people. It's like Brezhnev used to say: "I love
the American people, but I hate the U.S. government". Ha-Ha!



>Indeed, in some cases it may be boorish to *obey* the government.
>Take Burma, or Myanmar. The same government that "changed" this
>nation's English name has also trampled on the aspirations of
>most Burmese citizens (or should I call them Myanmartyrs?). It
>is widely hated by its subject-victims. Why should I, who am
>not subject to it in any way, pay any attention to what it says
>about my own native tongue?

You are getting into politics here. What does this have to do with
"Ukraine"? Of course, if you have no interest in Ukraine, then whether
you use the name properly or not or at all is irrelevant. However, if
you, for example, write an article in a local newspaper, in which, now
after our discussion, you would still use "the Ukraine", then
obviously you would be boorish or insensitive to the feelings of
Ukrainians both in Ukraine and abroad.


>
>It might be smart for me to use the term "Myanmar" when mailing
>a letter to Burma, but that would not make me one whit more
>educated.

Sure it would. It would mean that you made an effort to find out that
today the correct name is "Myanmar". If you ever write a letter to
Ukraine, I am sure you will know that the proper name is "Ukraine" and
not "the Ukraine".

>I had a tenant once who was a national of a loser regime that
>was addicted to name-changing. He was a Zairean at the time;
>although he had been born a Congolese; now, assuming he has
>survived his government's misrule, he is a Congolese again.
>
>Mobutu's Zaire didn't just change the names of nations and
>places: it changed *people's* names as well. Thus, my polished
>francophone tenant Omer Mvele received a letter from the
>government one day informing him that his Christian name was
>no longer Omer, which he had been called since his birth; it
>was now Mwamba, a name free of then-hated (by the government,
>at least) European influence. But Omer called himself Omer,
>when speaking English.
>

Again, I don't see what the above has to do with Ukraine. My point was
that it is not grammatically more correct in English to say "The
Ukraine" than to say "Ukraine". In fact the opposite is true. I don't
believe you have conradicted me on this point.

>Etiquette enters in only when speaking with actual Congolese,
>or Ukrainians, or whomever. And it is intrinsically two-sided.
>If I find that a specific Ukrainian wants me to say "[0] Ukraine,"
>then our conversation will be pleasanter if I do so. Since my
>utterance "[The] Ukraine" contains no intended insult, then if he
>refrains from manufacturing an imagined insult our conversation
>will also be pleasanter.

I doubt very much that you will be entering into discussion about
Ukraine with other than Ukrainians or Ukrainian-Americans or the like.
Now you should know that these people will expect you to use
"Ukraine", rather than "The Ukraine". It is, of course, totally
immaterial how you will call "Ukraine" if you happen to mention it to
your non-Ukrainian neighbor.

GP

>Tony West
>Philadelphia aaw...@critpath.org


pri...@sympatico.ca

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to
On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 21:01:59 GMT, Jukka....@hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 00:42:42 GMT, pri...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 17:03:16 GMT, Jukka....@hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>With due respect to the Ukraine and Ukrainian people, I must say that
>>>they cannot control the English language
>- -
>>Please don't be so patronizing. I graduated - -
>
>I made no statement about your use or understanding of English, so
>your graduation is immaterial. But your statement

>> The naming of Ukraine as "Ukraine"

>>Gambia" so be it, and it is merely common courtesy to write it


>>properly. Those who don't are considered to be boorish or uneducated.
>

>How ridiculous can you get? Assume some country declared their country
>to have an official name like "The Aybil, Land of Heros, which will
>send Yankees to hell!". Would you still hold your opinion? There _are_
>countries which include or might include a lot of politics into their
>"official names". Even if some officials and people would regard it as
>best to use those names in diplomacy and things like that, luckily
>most of us can just relax and use the names we are familiar with. The
>basic job of a name is to act as a name, which is widely recognized,
>hopefully with the same denotation. _Any_ replacement of an
>established name therefore involves a major problem, and should be
>done in exceptional cases only. And this also applies to names of
>countries in various languages. Some changes might be reasonable to
>do, especially if they involve removal of politically colored names in
>favor of older traditional names. (Things like replacing "Leningrad"
>by "St. Petersburg" or "Pietari" or whatever modification of the
>current Russian name suits our language--although you of course would
>not need to change back if you were one of the few people who kept
>using the traditional names all the time!)
>--
>Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/ or http://yucca.hut.fi/yucca.html

-----------------------------------------------------

You are obviously a boorish and presumptuous individual with whom
discussion on this issue is useless. I don't think you will make many
Ukrainian friends or do much business with Ukraine or Ukrainians.

GP

Keith C. Ivey

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to
Antonio <ip20...@ip.pt> wrote:

>Portuguese has very complex rules regarding the using of the article with
>toponyms and ethnonyms. As far as I can remember, the only countries with
>no article (nor gender!) at all are Cuba and our former colonies (not all
>of them) and things get even more complex when _em_ 'in' enters the scene
>and the article may disappear or not (_na_, _no_).

"Cuba" has no gender? Then what do you do when you have an adjective
that modifies it or a pronoun that refers to it?

Welcome back!

Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org>
http://cpcug.org/user/kcivey/
Washington, DC

Jukka Korpela

unread,
Aug 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/10/98
to
On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:26:27 GMT, pri...@sympatico.ca wrote:

(quotes an entire article - always a useful warning signal on Usenet,
even when the poster comments on the article content, which the
overquoters seldom do)

>You are obviously a boorish and presumptuous individual with whom
>discussion on this issue is useless. I don't think you will make many
>Ukrainian friends or do much business with Ukraine or Ukrainians.

From your name mysticism, you have now ascended to the level of
argumentum ad hominem. I wonder whether this is unavoidable, on
psychological grounds, whenever irrational attitudes towards names
have been questioned.

And I still did not get any answer to the nagging, although of course
pretty irrelevant, question why the presence or absence of a _definite
article_ is your experimentum crucis. The article certainly cannot be
a Russicism, can it?