To think that having a British translation of a foreign country or city name is nonsence?

[SlightlyJaded]

The 'Pav-a-lova' thread got me twitching about this again. It really annoys me because I don't understand why we do it, but am happy to be put right by a know all wiser person than me.

So why do we feel the need to have a British translation for the name of a foreign country or city? What's would have been wrong with calling Spain Espana or Munich Munchen? To me its an utter nonsense, you are not translating from an existing known word in one language to an existing known word in another language - someone has gone to the trouble of making up a completely new and meaningless word loosely based on a word that cannot be translated as it is a naming noun.

Equally mad in reverse - other countries inventing 'names' for the United Kingdom.

The strangest place translation is the English version of Porto....to Oporto? Why and that case why do we called their drink port?

Algiers is slightly closer to the arabic al jazair / el djazair pronuncation than the french Alger.

BTW Sahara is an anglicisation of the arabic word for desert so Sahara Desert just means Desert Desert

thank you ocopus - I guess it is about a bird then!

The translation I've always found a bit bizarre is the main football team in Munich. Its name in German is 'Bayern München' which literally translates as 'Bavaria Munich' yet it has always been translated as 'Bayern Munich'.

Some translations must come from what the translator thought they were hearing as well iyswim.

"The translation I've always found a bit bizarre is the main football team in Munich."

How about Hanover/Hannover

Linguistic laziness to translate things?!! So I've just been sat here all day translating for no good reason whatsoever...

If we spent all our time learning how to pronounce and spell every foreign place name in the world in the native language of that country we'd never learn anything else, let alone have time to visit those places.

Not all place names are translated. Most translated names are for old or ancient cities that have developed and changed over centuries, London Paris Florence etc. Fortunately we don't go around talking about newer cities like The Fertile Plains or The Angels.

In answer to OP's original question: because then British people would then pronounce Spain "A Spanner" and Firenze "Firrens" and their tourist industries would collapse immediately.

endangered, me too. Also just realised that am behind on a lot of invoicing for my linguistic laziness services... Lucky me that people want to pay me to be linguistically lazy.

Translations is brilliant.

Having said that, there are Irish names for every other country and city in the world; New York, Zurich, London. But the translations don't have the political purpose that the anglicisation of Irish words did.

Isn't it really ironic? Brian O Nuallain would have a field day, both from the absurdist and the linguistic points of view if he could have cast his subversive eye on the spectacle. He probably did.

A number of people have talked about Mumbai/Bombay. I live there and people use both all the time. I remember traveling in India a few years ago and every time I said Mumbai it was corrected to Bombay and if I said Bombay it was corrected to Mumbai.

It is not as simple as Bombay being the version imposed by the English but can't remember the full details at the moment.