And that’s why new coinages are much closer to the originals: we have nearly instantaneous transmission now.
That’s also the impetus for change: the more people interact with each other, the more likely that they choose to use the same word for the same things. It’s why languages are becoming much more homogenized than they were in the past.
There is value in being able to say one word, and have everyone in the world know what you mean: that’s why the idea of the lingua franca even exists.
That’s not what I mean. We have new words when there is a perceived need for a new word. Otherwise, language changes slowly, over generations. When a word already exists for something, people don’t suddenly start calling it something else one day for no good reason. The English word for that country has been Germany for a long time.
If words changed their meaning willy-nilly, nobody would understand one another. It’s in that sense that I meant that established usage is language.
And I had to go and check that yes, that Miguel Serveto you reference is the guy I’ve always heard of as Miguel Servet (he claimed he was from my hometown, having gone to school there, although he’d actually been born someplace else).
There’s a problem with trying to use the same name as the locals do: when I hear someone from Sri Lanka say Sri Lanka, it sounds to me like “sai lón” or “sai lán”, where the first a is kind of long; this matches well the old Spanish transliteration of “Ceilán”, specially for Spanish languages who use seseo (C pronounced as S). But when I hear someone from Spain read Sri Lanka out loud… they say esREE LANka or es REE LAN ka - it sounds less like the local name than the discarded spelling did! So, it boils down to a choice of “do you want me to spell it right or to say it right?” My own firstname has a similar problem: most foreigners can’t pronounce it if they see it spelled “in Spanish”; hence why, since I’d rather hear it pronounced right than see it written right, I introduce myself to foreigners using transliterated versions.
In a sense we do. “Japan” is a bastardization of one old Chinese pronunciation of the same characters as make up Nihon. I.e. both Nihon and Japan are references to the characters 日本.
John Brook, you mean.
Or the famous Italian opera composer, Joe Green.
That, again, is a Latinized version of his Hebrew name. If his name were Anglicized, we might be worshipping Joshua of Nazareth.
Northern Piper was making a joke, nobody actually believes “Trudeau” means “water hole”. It’s just funny to say. 
Ah. I’d never heard it before. being too young for Trudeau jokes. In any case, Casselman seems to say that some people thought that was the actual etymology.
I’m also too young to have heard Trudeau jokes while he was in power, but I can’t believe that anyone actually believed it to be the true etymology. Well, some people might have, but then some people think “golf” means “Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden”. When it sounds like a joke, most people will understand it to be a joke.
Along the same lines, there used to be a joke that “Parliament” comes from two French words: “Parler,” which means to talk, and"Mentir" which means to tell lies.
Yeah, but what do they call a Big Mac in France?
He had a cameo in The Flintstones Go To Toronto, I think.
Who, like all Germanic barbarians, were quite obtuse.
I’ll be here all week. You have been warned.
And “politics” comes from two roots: “poly”, meaning “many”, and “ticks”, meaning “bloodsucking insects”.
I’m acutely aware of this.
Let’s hope it’s not right.
I find it surprising that someone can seriously ask the question whether people in another country with another language call the same thing (such as the country itself) differently. That’s the whole point of having another language: You have other words for basically everything.
The whole debate about translating or not translating proper names misses the point that language is not logical. It evolves historically and organically, and there is no principle that proper names are always or never to be translated. It simply happened that, in English, it is now customary to translate country names into their English equivalent (though exceptions exist - Côte d’Ivoire is, I believe, now becomming more common than Ivory Coast, for instance) but not names of people. Accept it, but don’t be surprised that others in the world do not call their own countries by their English names (why the heck would they?!?).
Actually, many a Saxon had his head turned by a cute Angle.
(And like most people, the Angles themselves thought they were right.)
Do you mean this is the convention among the lay people, or the general convention? Because I always learned that a proper map will have the cities and mountains labelled with the name the natives of the country in question use; if necessary, the older, common name is added in lighter script and brackets underneath.
That’s why there’s the push to Mumbai and Beijing, after all: the people want to change it, and we comply. (Though our news anchors still pronounce London and Paris the German way, and call it Frankreich instead of France).
“Proper” map? There is no recognized authority on what is a “proper” map.
What “people”? In the case of name changes in India, most of the “people” don’t give a rat’s ass and continue to do as they have always done – use all versions of the name as they see fit. My relatives in Varanasi use “Varanasi,” “Benares,” “Banaras,” and “Kashi,” as it suits them, and they certainly don’t care what form foreign press reports use. Similarly Bombay/Mumbai and Calcutta/Kolikata/Kolkata. The name changes are pushed by political parties seeking to appease relatively small nationalist agitators.