Translations

["61510::GILSON" <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!gilson!61510.decnet>]

I wrote:

>              I would say that if it is common to translate the name in
>some languages, you should translate it into Lojban (hence the "New" of
>New York and New Orleans, Prince Edward Island, etc.) If it is never
>translated (like Los Angeles, Bethlehem, etc.) then simply Lojbanbize the
>pronounciation.

Mark responded:

>Yeah, but who decides?  Saying "if it's usually translated" is a wonderful
>way to ask for trouble.  Yeah, "New" is translated for Spanish-speakers,
>but Hebrew-speakers (and if I understand Ivan correctly, Bulgarian-speakers)
>talk about /niu iork/.  Some speak of "Co^te d'Ivoire",
>others of "The Ivory Coast".  So which is "common" to translate?

OK -- if "common" (I did not use "usually" in the passage he quoted) is too
vague, put it this way. If _any_ foreign language translates, then translate.
Nobody ever renders "Queensland" by their languages word for "queen's land"
or Bethlehem by words for "house of bread." Note that I had opposed "common"
to "never" and I thought that it was clear. I still use "Ivory Coast" in
English, although the government prefers the French form even in English
because I think the English usage is normally to use English. But nobody any
more refers to White Russia, though it was once common.

                                                              Bruce