« first day    last day (16 days later) » 

vsz
vsz
04:56
@Abigail : The problem is not speaking the name in Maori if you're talking in Maori. That's fine, and it's good to be encouraged. The problem is having to speak the name in Maori even if you're not speaking Maori. If the name "Aotearoa" is not a translation, only proves my point. For example, the French call the Germans "allemand". It was a name of a tribe, and not the entire of Germanic people. So it's not a translation either.
 
5 hours later…
IMSoP
IMSoP
09:57
@vsz Germany is an extreme outlier in having so many names; there is an entire Wikipedia page about it. Nearly every other country gets to choose their own name, and at most gets a few spelling or pronunciation variations to fit your mouth around.
when the USSR collapsed, and a newly independent country named itself as "Tajikistan", we didn't turn around and say "ah, well, that's fine in your language, but we'd prefer to call you 'New Wiltshre' because that sounds more English"
we just said "OK, that's a name we'll have to add to our maps"
Forget about the language issue for a while, and imagine the country votes to rename itself "South Pacific Republic"; would you insist that the "real" name was still "New Zealand"? If not, why would a vote to rename itself "Aotearoa" be any different?
vsz
vsz
10:23
@IMSoP : if Germany is such an extreme outlier that we should disregard it as a unique exception, then why don't you call Finland "Suomi", why don't you call Japan "Nippon", why don't you call Georgia "Sakartvelo", why don't you call Hungary "Magyarország", and why don't you call China "Zhōngguó"?
And if they renamed New Zealand to "South Pacific Republic", the Germans would, for example, call it "Südpazifische Republik", instead of "South Pacific Republic". So, if they renamed New Zealand to "Long white Cloud-land", why would any country be required to use the Maori language version of it, instead of making their own translations?
IMSoP
IMSoP
10:49
@vsz maybe I shouldn't have chosen a name with such an obvious meaning; what if they chose "Zealandia", or "Nuzzlin", or "Gondor"
there's a reason we generally talk about the etymology of names, not their meaning: "England" isn't literally "the land of the Angles", it's just a place on the map
there's no reason at all why "Aotearoa" couldn't become a name in English just because it has a Maori etymology, like thousands of others
"Japan" vs "Nippon" is an interesting example: they're both actually attempts to transliterate the same name, "日本"
but "Aotearoa" doesn't need transliterating, so there's no issue there
If the English-speaking, democratically elected government of the country declared that to be the English name, it would be a strong political statement for any official context to refuse to use that name.
vsz
vsz
@IMSoP : Why no issue? It doesn't really align to any English pronunciation rules. So if they vote that as the new name, they might be surprised that many countries will likely use "Otoro", or "Otoria", or "Ottoland" as its name in their languages.

But this discussion is indeed on the verge of being pointless, because it's about a far hypothetical, and highly unlikely to happen. That name change is only supported by a small, relatively fringe party.
IMSoP
IMSoP
11:05
I don't see the problem; without any input from a Maori speaker, I would assume it was pronounced "ay-oh-tay-uh-row-uh"
no harder than learning how to say "Saudi Arabia", or "Eritrea"
or, for that matter, "Leicestershire"

« first day    last day (16 days later) »