ChatterBank0 min ago
Bombay.
43 Answers
Apparently nowadays, certain sections of society look at you like you've grown a second head if you refer to the Indian city of Bombay.
Why?
It has been known to the British as Bombay since the middle of the 19th century. If the locals want to call it Mumbai then that's fine but I don't see why we need to follow suit.
Should we no longer refer to the Italian capital as Rome because the locals call it Roma. Is Athens a thing of the past and should we now call it Athena or more correctly Αθηνα. And remember that these two cities were named by their inhabitants long before the English came up with a name for them.
There are other cities that have Anglicised names such as Lisbon, Turin, Florence and, I'm sure, plenty of others.
So why is special distinction made when referring to Bombay?
Why?
It has been known to the British as Bombay since the middle of the 19th century. If the locals want to call it Mumbai then that's fine but I don't see why we need to follow suit.
Should we no longer refer to the Italian capital as Rome because the locals call it Roma. Is Athens a thing of the past and should we now call it Athena or more correctly Αθηνα. And remember that these two cities were named by their inhabitants long before the English came up with a name for them.
There are other cities that have Anglicised names such as Lisbon, Turin, Florence and, I'm sure, plenty of others.
So why is special distinction made when referring to Bombay?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lucy-Thomas. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I've spoken to Italians about Rome and to Greeks about Athens. In neither case did the person find it 'insulting' or 'offensive'.
So what's the difference. Why would an Indian be offended if I referred to Bombay in conversation. I would suspect that it is more a case of perceived offense by politically 'correct' people like you.
So what's the difference. Why would an Indian be offended if I referred to Bombay in conversation. I would suspect that it is more a case of perceived offense by politically 'correct' people like you.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
But Vibe ... does it really have anything to do with the Raj, or colonialism?
We now refer to Peking as Beijing.
Therefore, as Lucy-T says, why don't we refer to Lisbon as Lisboa?
In fact, we still refer to the town from where we get port as "Porto", a name created by the English Port traders. The proper name os Oporto.
And ... (on a roll now) ...
Why do we use the pronunciation "Newc arse tle"
... when the people who named the town would have called it "Newc ass tle" ?
We now refer to Peking as Beijing.
Therefore, as Lucy-T says, why don't we refer to Lisbon as Lisboa?
In fact, we still refer to the town from where we get port as "Porto", a name created by the English Port traders. The proper name os Oporto.
And ... (on a roll now) ...
Why do we use the pronunciation "Newc arse tle"
... when the people who named the town would have called it "Newc ass tle" ?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Ever since independence in 1947, many locations in India have changed their names. Much of this resulted from the reorganization of the states on linguistic lines (as opposed to British colonial divisions). However, in the last six years, many major towns and cities have been renamed in ways that affect foreigners more. Among this flood of changes, three stand out. These are the former cities of Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta, which, together with Delhi, are considered the "mega cities" of India.1 They are the four most populous cities in India, and all but Madras are among the 15 most populous cities in the world.2 As a result, they are important commercial and transit hubs, and are well known outside India. Yet nearly six years later, most non-Indians still have no idea that they are now named Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata. Given the difficulties involved in these changes, one expects compelling justifications for the changes. In each case, these changes have officially been justified on anti-colonialist grounds. However, I will argue that these changes are instead tools for channeling regionalist sentiment in the conflict between the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the centrist Indian National Congress (INC), and various regional parties. Opponents of the INC proposed all these names, but those proposed by the BJP and its nationalist allies have been more divisive.
does this mean the end of beef madas . I hope not
does this mean the end of beef madas . I hope not
