aldiboronti said:
So we live in
a) The United States of Universal Power
b) The United States of Work Power
c) The United States of Home Power
Hmmm.
I don’t understand why all the responses are in this tone.
I am not even taking a side in this debate, I’ve already criticized the Ameryk theory twice myself. I brought it up though because I was surprised to see a column on SD saying why was it named after… when many reputable sources on the web acknowledge that there is some dispute.
You’re right though, the letters are a matter of public record, and they don’t mention america. I think maybe the suggestion is that Vespucci sent a copy of one of John Cabot’s maps that allegedly were marked with america (though none survive)?
In a quick googling around there is some mention of a letterto columbus that mentions cabot’s maps, but you’d still have to join a few dots to make it all fit.
<missed edit window>
btw I used that link because it posts the contents of the letter, not because I agree with the idea that it was to help columbus find the new world (!!)
Grump. There are no reputable sources that acknowledge this. We just went through this with Shakespeare, which may be why I’m sensitive, but really just because some people dispute it doesn’t mean there is a real dispute.
And it is something more than a nitpick to point out that the letter in question was not sent to Columbus. Yes, your link says that, but it is wrong. Here is the first page of the original article. And here is a footnote that stomps on a Columbus connection. (P. 8 if the link doesn’t take you directly there.)
The letter appears to be entirely irrelevant to the topic. In fact, it specifically cites the name of the country visited by Cabot as Brasil, a known legendary island, pardon the oxymoron, that had preciously appeared on maps. I can’t find any trace of a connection to America as a name. Again, this is what I mean by amateur historians, Internet or otherwise. And worse, the total wackadoodles that the Internet enables, such as the one you linked to, whose front page proudly says:
I’ve noticed some these guys won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer. But they are really intelligent and well prepared. So read their responses carefully. I’ve learned a lot from them in a very short time.
It’s not a John Cabot, but the John Cabot, and even with scant evidence, most historians agree that he landed on the island of Newfoundland.
nitpick/Err… it’s actually Tourette syndrome.
At no point did I assert that you asserted it.
The mere fact that someone denies it doesn’t make it “debatable”; it becomes debatable only when the opposition is sensible.
Actually, it was “Tourette’s syndrome” for over a century. Deleting the possessive “'s” from the names of diseases, like deleting the word “River” from the names of New York Parkways, is only a recent fashion.
True, but the ‘s’ has been dropped for almost 20 years and the T is still capitalized.
Bolivia
Thanks, I’d forgotten about Bolivia. However, it was established in 1825, well after the period for the naming of America. Colombia (originally Gran Colombia) dates from about the same period. Still looking for a region in the New World named after the last name of someone, from about the period 1500, which is the supposed rule advanced by Athildur.
Bermuda.
(Although, of course, the assertion that countries are always named after someone’s last name not first was shot down already by the Philippines example. This tends me towards thinking QI didn’t do their research, as they made the same assertion).
that’s a good example - thanks - I didn’t know that was the origin of Bermuda’s name.
I got it from this wiki page.
It’s interesting to see how most countries get their names: geographical features looks most common, then tribes, then flora or fauna.
Which makes it all the more remarkable Vespucci got a country and a continent in his name.
self nitpick: on looking again I think naming after individuals probably comes in third.
Not that I’m taking any sides in this non-argument, but I hasten to point out that the cited examples of first-named nations are named after kings (Carolinas, Georgia, Philippines), or princes (Prince Rupert’s Land): a class of person which, until recent history, never used* a surname. That was a burden of the middling noble class and lower.
*NB: I said used a surname. Most European royal houses had surnames, but they weren’t used in personal address as long as the house remained in power or influence. Surnames often became dynastic names, like Plantagenet or Capet. I don’t think any royal would have tolerated being addressed “Mr. Plantagenet” or the like. And many royal surnames are based on their hereditary holdings, like Hanover (George II above). And you’ll see that for placenames (Hanover, PA comes to mind, although my understanding that particular town is named after the German city and not its Duke), but it’s hard to sensibly argue it was intended as a personal surname reference.
If you must address a royal by a “last name”, it is not the dynastic name, but the territory. E.g., Prince Charles would be “Wales”, not “Windsor” (or “Mountbatten-Windsor”, which is the family name of male-line descendants of Elizabeth II who are not royal). But you don’t normally do that unless the royal is a student or in the military.
Nobles and bishops often use their titles as their signatures. For example, the preface to my copy of “Kobbe’s Complete Opera Book”, as revised by the Earl of Harewood, is signed “Harewood”, rather than “George Lascelles”.
Even more remarkable it that he has 2 continents with his name.
Depending on which convention you follow, yes.
Whose aunt is Antartica named after?
Don’t forget Abel Tasman and Tasmania and the Tasman Sea; Vacouver Island; South Sandwich Islands… Straits of Magellan… The Falklands were name “Falk” because “Columbo” was already taken. (And I hear snorkelling is actually pretty good in the Maldives).
Sydney - is that a first or last name? Sir Phillip Sydney was defending England from something or other Spanish, IIRC.