Talk:Etymology of Oregon

Discussion moved from Talk:Oregon

The following discussion was the impetus behind the creation of this page. -Pete 07:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Oregon native, and NOWHERE in Oregon is the 'disputed' pronunciation used. There may be some regional variation throughout the state, but they are all very close to the first pronunciation. There are places in the Eastern U.S. where "AR-eh-GONE" is the correct pronunciation for "Oregon", but not when referring to the state. (For example, I have a friend who grew up next to Lake Oregon in Wisconsin. "AR-eh-GONE" is a correct pronunciation there.) The pronunciation of the name of this state is not in dispute. There is a right way, and a wrong way. (I went to college in Prescott, Arizona. Most people, including myself before I moved there, would pronounce this town "PRESS-cot". The locals pronounce it "PRESS-kit". That makes "PRESS-kit" the correct pronunciation for that location, irrespective of the 'correct' pronunciation of the same word elsewhere.) Ehurtley 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Correct" pronunciation is determined not by the residents of the state, but by usage among English speakers in general just as for any other English word. The dictionary (Merriam Webster) cited for the pronunciation favored by Oregon residents lists both pronunciations as correct. So does American Heritage Dictionary. For us to overrule the research of multiple dictionaries based on personal preferences would be POV. Erall 19:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on the use of English is that articles relating to Britain use British English, without reference to the American equivalent, and articles relating to the USA use American English without citing the British equivalent (as opposed to International English for both). Equivalently, shouldn't the page on Oregon cite the "Oregon" pronounciation, without reference to the "everyone else's" pronounciation?

And by the way, the dictionary isn't God. It hardly has the final say on matters like this (dictionaries get plenty of stuff wrong, especially medical and scientific terminology). Radioactive afikomen 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You bring up a good point with the British/American English analogy. Looking over the policy page (WP:SPELLING), it looks like it's intended for national differences rather than regional, but it might apply here by extension. On the other hand, the pronunciation policy page (WP:PRON) says to use both the English and the local pronunciations of foreign place names. Also not directly applicable here, but potentially relevant.

Dictionaries do indeed get things wrong, but they are the standard references for the meaning, etymology, and pronunciation of words. There's a strong presumption the dictionary is right unless someone comes up with other citations that are more reliable about the fact in question (for example, for medical terms I'd trust a medical reference book over a general-purpose dictionary). The dictionaries are the best verifiable source on this question that has been brought up so far. Erall 03:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the OED concurs on the multiple pronunciations. It lists for British English): /ˈɒrɪɡ(ə)n/ and for American English: /ˈɔrəˌɡɑn/ and /ˈɔrəɡ(ə)n/. Hope that helps, though it doesn't address at all the "foreign vs. domestic" problem - I'm a lifelong Oregonian (or as the OED also lists, Oregonite), and I don't think it's at all offensive or bad to have both pronunciations listed. akendall 05:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

this and this might also be helpful - they're from the archive of this page. akendall 06:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, akendall, for pointing out earlier contributions to this discussion. I'm beginning to think this conversation and the accompanying reversions are becoming a drain on this page, which is about much more than the pronunciation of the state's name. Let me suggest the following solution: since the origin of the name "Oregon" is itself unknown, and there is an interesting collection of theories, we should create an article called something like History of the name "Oregon", drawing info from this page and the Columbia River page, and include a discussion of the various pronunciations. Then, the Oregon page can simply state that the pronunciation is a matter of some dispute, and link to the other page. Any objections, or suggestions for a better article title? -Pete 18:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Etymology of the word Oregon or (Etymology of the name Oregon)? Taking a cue from Minnesota and a quick search around the wiki, which seems to show that generally the quotes are left off in titles except for the history of a certain expletive... Or if we really want to sound fancy, how about Oregon (toponym)? (as seen at Albania (toponym)) Katr67 18:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I like Oregon (toponym), and the fact that we can, once and for all, pawn this discussion off onto another page (though unfortunately, I'm sure we'll all still remain involved). akendall 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This goes out to Erall who wants what we Orygonians do not want: The incorrect is fine here to go along with the correct as determined by residents of this state with a proper explanation, if and only if you get every other state/region/town to do the same. For instance you might want to check out the talk page for Illa noize and see how they like it when their name is mispronounced, even though this is a very common mispronuctiation as shown by Ludacris' Pimpin' All Over the World song where he goes to Illa-noize to get a taste of Chicago. Aboutmovies 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Category

Every few months Hmains comes along and tries to put this article under Category:Oregon culture. And every few months I put it back into the top-level Category:Oregon. I'm too tired to articulate my reasoning right now, but it just seems to make sense. Does anybody else have an opinion before I go try to convince him to stop doing that? Katr67 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Every few months I see Hmains do that, and kind of scratch my head. It doesn't seem like a terribly bad category to put it in, but I really don't see any good reason for it. I guess if s/he's insistent, a compromise might be to put it in both categories; categories are supposed to ease navigation, and if s/he sees some reason why it's better in that category, so be it; but keep it in the top level too, because I think there's lots of people who wouldn't think to look there. (Vertical categorization, contrary to popular opinion, is not "against the rules" -- just discouraged in most cases.) -Pete (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Culture seems a little to a lot wrong to me too. It would be one thing if we celebrated the history of the word, or it were embedded in—say—our state handshake. But it's more a linguistic, academic, and/or historical topic, not culture. —EncMstr 06:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that a Category:Words might be useful, given an array of such definition-oriented articles (some admittedly of my own authorship or contribution: skookum, skookumchuck, saltchuck, and others around which there's a culture, and other usages including specific places or derivative concepts/names (skookum (cat) for instance). Category:Pacific Northwest words almost seesm like a good idea, no? Wouldn't need a Category:Words hierarchy, just as a subcat off Category:Pacific Northwest. A bc-side word for the list is rancherie, not sure if it's around in the US; I'm sure it's a longer list if we all gave it some thought, .e. name/word articles like this one.Skookum1 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already in Category:Etymology, which is a sub-cat of Category:Words. A new category specifically for PNW words would be great, if and when we have a few more articles to put in it; I'd think it's better to focus on writing those articles first, and worry about categorization later. Very interested to see what you come up with. -Pete (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well,as you can wsee a number already have articles....Squamish (wind) and williwaw also come to mind, also chinook (wind) in its coastal context. Tyee should probably have an article, though I don't mean to invoke only CJ words, there are others non-CJ, I'll have to put on my thinking cap.... Saltchuck btw turns up as a corporate name, Saltchuk Resources, as also does Skookum (Skookum Tools).Skookum1 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah - potlatch, of course. More CJ, let me see if I can do better....Skookum1 (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tyee redirects to Tribal chief, which is only one of its meanings; almost seems like it shoudl be an article like Skookum and Skookumchuck - Tyee salmon, Tyee in the sense of boss, tyee in the sense of the larger of two/several things etc.Skookum1 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Muckamuck shows up as a business name, also - for a pet food company. List of companies and organizations with Chinook Jargon names seems a bit ponderous of a title, but potentially a fair-sized list, and interesting no doubt....I'll relocate this discusson to Talk:Pacific Northwest or Talk:List of Chinook Jargon placenames or some such as it's far off topic from Oregon (toponym).Skookum1 (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about using both? It is a compromise that would work, not well, but well enough. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouragon

Others derive the name as a corruption of the French word ouragan (hurricane), referring to the tumultuous nature of the winter storms that batter the northwest Oregon County (Oregon, Washington, and Idaho).[citation needed]

Actually I think I can dig up a webref for that, although it's the winds of the Columbia Gorge the story was in reference to; in the CHINOOK list on http://www.linguistlist.org - should be searchable there as "ouragon", and there were various works cited in the discussion. If anyone's interested in this and wants to dig there, it'll be easy to find, or I'll vget to it eventually. Myself I lean towards teh hurricane explanation, but that's just a gut feeling. "French fur traders" can be even more specific, given the limited and very documented staff of the HBC and NWC; Pere la Verendrye at least, I'm not familiar with the French era of Prairie exploration,m though all us Canucks get fed it in elementary school, or did n my day anyway. Could be someone else, a first provenance; the text should not that they were francophone employees of British fur companies, unless all this is supposed to have taken place in teh days of New France...whch it may have. Grande fleuve de l'Ouest occurs on some maps, lke the Mer de l'Ouest, which as apocrphyal hsitories lke Bergi and Cibola and Anian all have connectsion to the region, as also the legendary era of the Northwest Passage. Oregon's origins as a name le n that msty period, of places referred to, imagined, that had never been seen, or by only a few; the French origin certainly strikes me as plausible despite the endorsement of the Wisconsin theory; they should be [[francophone]] and ''not'' [[France|French]] or [[French|Quebec]] or even [[French Canadian]] fur traders - many, though francophone, were not canadien but Metis or otherwise born beyond the Canadas. "Francophone\s in the employ of the Hudson's Bay Company and/or the Northwest Company (or the Pacific Fur Company" or some such (the PFC despite its American ownership was mostly French staffed. Anyway I'll dig out the cite(s) from CHINOOK when I have wsome more time....Skookum1 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

While we wait with bated breath for Skookum's reference I have supplied an external reference to the article by Goddard and Love so everybody may now judge the issue by himself. The reference to their theory in this wikipedia article was rather rudimentary and actually misleading in its brevity. I therefore hope my more extensive rendering of their argument does it better justice.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Fresh source

Not sure if there is anything new here or not. Aboutmovies (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oregon Historical Quarterly, old source. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid the article in The Oregonian adds nothing new and only incited some people to rehash old chestnuts (a letter-to-the-editor with the "French Hurricane" canard warmed up). But I think the 1922-article in the Oregon Historical Quarterly would be a useful reference for the first-use-by-Carver claim. However, links to Google books do not always work for non-US IP-addresses. So I'd advise not to put in an external link to the article, but just to give the following reference:

Elliot, T.C. "Jonathan Carver's source for the name Oregon," in: Oregon Historical Quarterly, Vol. XXIII (1922), pp. 58-69--Ereunetes (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the Okanagan Historical Society might have something, because they have covered a lot of ground outside the Canadian Okanagan in their....forty? fifty? years of publication? They're not on-line but most BC universities and large public libraries keep the OHS Quarterly on regular shelves (i.e. you might be able to get some through interlibrary loand)...but I don't think there's an index, though maybe UBC or BC Archives indexes them....great stuff, if you ever come across some in a used bookshop; a mix of kitchen-counter poetry, folk history, formal research, and a galaxy of unusual bios and vignettes. I think there may be something in there, I seem to recall seeing something; just another theory....there might be something in the Kootenay-area sites I've come across too, which are more specifially Columbia River-related, I'll keep my eyes open next time I stumble across them....(found a lot when looking up the Slocan towns and Doukhobors and Rossland and Ft Shepherd and such....)Skookum1 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that you contribute something on the Oregon Historical Quarterly. Unfortunately, someone merged this with Oregon Historical Society already, so right now the OHQ title links to the OHS article. But that could be undone, of course. Or the OHS article could be augmented with more information on the OHQ. Apparently, there is not yet an article on the Okanagam Historical Society. Could you start one? Might be fun.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wisconsin River theory; cites and confusing claim

I provided two citations for George R. Stewart's theory that the word Oregon comes from a map error about the Wisconsin River. One is the actual 1944 article mentioned (online at JSTOR, but the first page has much info), the other is Stewart's book Names on the Land, which also describes the theory and is perhaps more easily available than the journal article.

I was going to take out the sentence that followed the Stewart theory, which read: "This theory was endorsed in Oregon Geographic Names as "the most plausible explanation"." The footnote given is to a book originally published in 1928, which seems odd given that Stewart's theory dates to 1944. But as I was explaining this here I realized the book is a 2003 Seventh Edition. So I put it back. Anyway, onward to fix up the same info at Oregon Country. Pfly (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is a pity that neither Stewart's article, nor his book is easily accessible online. However, the article by Goddard and Love is. They mention Stewart's theory (most extensively in note 36 belonging to their par. 35). Though they do not explicitly polemicize with Stewart, they apparently reject his explanation. If I understand the argument correctly they recognize that Rogers probably knew both the map of Lahontan (with the error Stewart bases his theory on) and the one by Le Page (on which they base their own claim in part). But Lahontan's map also contains an unnamed river flowing westward which they think corresponds more or less with Le Page's "Belle Rivière" that they nominate for the Great River of the West. They next argue that Rogers must have intended this river and not the Wisconsin river (which has a name on both maps), in view of his thrice repeated instructions on how to find the North-West Passage. Their main argument, however, seems to be derived from the phrase in Rogers' petition: "the River called by the Indians Ouragon...." If Rogers based himself on the Lahontan map, he need not have to made the claim that the Indians used this name. On the other hand, Le Page claimed a Native American origin for his "Belle Rivière" and Goddard/Love claim that Rogers "translated this back" into the only Native American language he was familiar with (he probably was but dimly aware that not all "Indians" spoke the same language).

Now, I don't propose to settle the argument here, or in the article. But I think the article would benefit from a more extensive exposition of the argument as it is (preferably with more extensive quotes from Stewart than are now readily available). I also think that the Stewart and Goddard/Love theories are the only ones to be taken seriously, in combination with the fact that the origin of the toponym can be traced through Carver to Rogers. The article might show a bit more skepticism to the other "theories" proffered.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can provide some quotes from Stewart. I too do not think the question can be settled. Pfly (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be ueseful. Maybe first on this discussion page? The problem is that there is no explicit polemic between Stewart and Goddard/Love. As they wrote about 60 years apart we would have to interpolate what Stewart has to say against G/L's implicit argument against his theory (which seems to amount to two points: he doesn't explain the claim by Rogers that "indians call it the Ouragan (see above)"; and he looks at the wrong river). So if quotes from Stewart would shed light on this question that might be helpful I think. Maybe Stewart might have agreed with G/L if he had known their arguments, so there need not be a real conflict, after all :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll type out some Stewart stuff when I get a bit of time. I seem to recall reading about the beautiful river theory in Elliott's early 1920s articles. Perhaps I'm misremembering, or Goddard/Love have a different angle on it. Anyway, will post here soon or later. Pfly (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As suggested already, re the "Indians called it Ouragan" notion, is which Indians; there are a good dozen quite different languages along its course today, and it may be that the Clark Fork or Kootenai/y of Snake were what was being referred to, and may not have even been a language found among the peoples who are in the region today; it could be Siouxan, Crow, Blackfoot (the Blackfoot/feet were in the Rocky Mountain Trench, both in what is now Ktunaxa territory as well as up in the Big Bend). Just venturing, adn verging on OR like all this stuff does, but it may be that a survey of potential meanings in a whole range of languages not yet considered might reveal something; and some of those languages e.g. Cayuse, very little is known about; only that they existed; the Columbia River article uses only Wihml/Wimahl, which is Chinookan and in fact from a particular Chinookan language; Yakama, Cayuse, Ktunaxa and the array of Interior Salish language-names are not given, even if they were ever recorded mind you. Shoshonean is another possibility....Skookum1 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, I just added two references to articles in the OHQ of Dec. 1920 which I found in Google books, one of which (by John Rees) claims a Soshone origin for the word and one (by Galvani) who tries to debunk the Carver origin (though he doesn't supply a convincing defense for his preference for a bastardization of "Aragon"). I placed the latter among the red herrings (there was a citation request) but the Rees article is more serious. However, he doesn't address the unmistakable primacy of Rogers in his petition, which I think is crucial. Remember, what we are looking for is the origin of a toponym. So the search route is: first use on a map (Carver) and then: how did he get it?--Ereunetes (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from George R. Stewart

I managed to type out Stewart's description of his Oregon name origin theory as described in his book Names on the Land. He writes about some background stuff we already know, such as the petitions of Robert Rogers. He also quickly mentions a number of other theories ("wildly guessed", as he puts it). Of course Stewart's theory is also a guess when you get down to it. It seems to me that the truth will never be known for certain, unless some new primary source documents are discovered that answer it. I have not finished reading the 2004 article on Goddard and Love's theory, but so far it seems similar to Stewart's in being an educated guess. Stewart's theory is described in the book over a couple pages and there is a footnote, added in the 2nd or 3rd edition (I have the 3rd), which I also typed up. I added horizontal lines to separate my words from Stewart's. The book's full citation info:

Stewart, George R. (1967) [1945]. Names on the Land: A Historical Account of Place-Naming in the United States (Sentry edition (3rd) ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

---

[From pages 153-154]

Among the French explorers of the west was the Baron Lahontan. He was not a man of integrity, and told a tale of a certain Long River which did not exist. But he wrote charmingly, and his book with illustrations and maps was published in French and English in several editions. Most of these contained a map on which appeared Wisconsin River, spelled in French fashion Ouisconsink. But for the French edition of 1715 this map was redrawn by a careless engraver who made many mistakes with names, such as Magara for Niagara. He wrote Ouisconsink as Ouariconsint, and he also broke the word with a small hyphen because the map was crowded, and he put sint beneath. So anyone looking at the map a little carelessly would think that there was a river Ouaricon, flowing toward the west.

Thus matters stood when in 1760 Major Robert Rogers, famous leader of the Rangers, went west to receive the surrender of the French posts at Detroit and elsewhere. There he apparently heard the old tale, often reported by the French, about a River of the West flowing to the Pacific through a break in the Rocky Mountains. The Indians with whom the French had ordinary contact could not have been so far west themselves, and they must have been telling tales they picked up from others, or else (as Indians often did) they were merely saying what they knew the white men wanted to hear. ...

Rogers may have believed the story, or may only have used it for his own ends; though a great frontier fighter, he was by no means trustworthy in peace. Later, being in London, in 1765, he petitioned the King to be granted a commission and funds for the discovery of the Northwest Passage by way of this river. In his petitions he would naturally try to make the story as reasonable as possible, and so he had a motive for using a more precise name than River of the West. He wrote "the river called by the Indians," and then spelled the name much as it stood by mistake on that map.

Perhaps the explanation is that some Frenchman or Englishman, remembering vaguely, had told Rogers: "I have seen on an old map a river Ouaricon, flowing to the west, by which you can pass in canoes to the ocean." (This indeed was true, for the Wisconsin served as one route by which the French reached the Mississippi and the Gulf.) If Ouaricon had been passed by word of mouth, its c could easily have become g, because these sounds are often interchanged. As for Roger's own assertion that the river was so called "by the Indians," it rests only upon his own word, which was then considered far from reliable. Besides, being a man who knew Indians, he would more likely have said Chippewas or Crees, if telling what actually happened, for he would have known that as far as language goes the word Indian means nothing. So, in his petitions to the King, Rogers wrote uncertainly—Ouragon, Ourgan, and Ourigan.

The King did not grant Rogers any money for an expedition, but sent him to command at Michilimackinac. From that post Rogers sent Jonathan Carver to explore farther west, and in 1778 Carver published his Travels through the Interior Parts of North America. Like Rogers, Carver was unreliable, and some have called his Travels largely fiction. But he at last established the form which the name was to take, spelling it Oregon.

Over the source of this name more controversy has raged than over any other on the continent. Men have guessed wildly that it might be from the Spanish orégano, "marjoram"; orejón, "big ear," or "slice of dried apple," origen, "source"; or from the old kingdom Aragon. They have guessed also the French ouragan, "storm"; the Abnaki orighen, "fine"; the Shoshone ogwa-peon, "river-west"; the Chippewa owah-wakan, "river of slaves". They have also pointed out its resemblance to Orjon, a river in Tartary, and to the tribal name of some eastern Indians known vaguely as Horikans. The final absurdity is perhaps the suggestion that it originated from a wandering Irishman called O'Regan.

Most likely, however, it arose from that mistake of the mapmaker which made Ouisconsink look like Ouaricon; thence it passed into Ourigan and Ouragon, and finally became Oregon.

[From pages 463-464 (Notes and References section)]

Oregon: See my article "The source of the name 'Oregon'" (SS, p. 174). Bracher (SS) from further examination of maps decides that the possibility of the theory is increased. Since I first put the idea forward, there has been no attempt at refutation,and the explanation seems to have been rather widely accepted. On the other hand, the slow spread of knowledge is discouraging. Thus George Stimpson's Book about American History (1950), a volume in many places offering good information on place names, offers no comment for or against the theory, an indication probably that the author had not heard of it. The same is also true of the so-called "revised" (3rd) edition of McArthur's Oregon Geographic Names (1952), although McArthur himself had written me before his death, expressing interest in my article.

---

The "SS" above stands for a bibliography reference book: R.B. Sealock and P.A. Seely, Bibliography of Place Name Literature: United States, Canada, Alaska and Newfoundland (1948). Apparently this must be used to figure out the Bracher reference.

The first page of Stewart's 1944 journal article in which he first described his theory can be read online at JSTOR here. The first page contains much of the theory, as the full article is only three pages long. I typed it out, much ellipsized:

---

...T.C. Elliott discovered that the name [Oregon] appeared in the manuscripts of Major Robert Rogers, and could be found as 'Ouragon' as early as 1765 ("The Origin of the Name Oregon," Quart. of the Oreg. Hist. Soc., June, 1921, and "Jonathan Carver's Source for the Name Oregon," ibid., March, 1922). Lewis A. McArthur, in his Oregon Geographic Names (1922), declared that Elliott had thus made the 'one important contribution ... in the last hundred years.' ... The name is ultimately derived, I believe, from a confusion arising from the 'Carte générale de Canada' of Lahontan's Nouveaux voyages ... dans l'Amérique Septentrionale. This work exists in many varying editions, and I am thus unable to say just when the map first appeared, but it was certainly as early as 1709, and perhaps in 1703. ... In the English editions of Lahontan, however, the situation giving rise to the name was changed when the map was redrawn with English captions.

Anyone looking at this map of Lahontan's somewhat asually will see, near the left-hand edge, what appears to be 'R. de Ouaricon.' ... A close inspection will show that following 'Ouaricon' are two small dots indicating a hyphen, and that below are written the letters 'sint' ... [jstor preview ends]

---

Ok, that's all I can manage at the moment! Pfly (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I finished reading the Goddard and Love article. They certainly have researched Rogers' life in detail. While we can still only guess why he used the name, and it's not even up to us wikipedians to do the guessing here, this article is the most detailed I've seen. Near the end they say their explanation of the origin of "Oregon" is supported by "a context of time and place that is critical and that other suggestions have lacked". They definitely provide a lot more context than Stewart did in Names on the Land. On the other hand, Stewart's explanation is not lacking in historical context, even if it is much less detailed. It is too bad that Goddard and Love don't directly address Stewart's Ouaricon map theory. They even skip over it when writing "Any compelling explication of the matter, therefore, must put Rogers at the center of the account and must be directed to the period before 1765. None of the solutions offered since Elliott's work was published [1922] do this." Yet they mention Stewart's theory in a footnote, so they know about it. It almost seems as if they are deliberately not bringing up Stewart's theory, instead addressing the many others that just relate similar words in other languages. I'd even say their points about how Rogers would have seen or been told about various French maps including Lahontan's supports Stewart's guess as at least a reasonable possibility. Both Goddard/Love and Stewart point out how Rogers probably wrote about the origin of the name vaguely in order to mask his own guess or "transfer". Ah well, it's not for us to determine here anyway. Funny how an otherwise obscure historical figure can become the subject of detailed investigation. Pfly (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all: compliments for making the "Stewart story" accessible to all of us. At least now we can discuss the main alternatives in a rational manner.

My first impression is one of deflation. Both the Stewart and Goddard/Love theories seem to depend on a number of leaps of faith. Both claim that Rogers "must have seen" either the Lahontan book (Stewart), or both the Lahontan and the Le Page books (G/L) and that he was inspired to use the word "Ouragan" by either of the books. The next leap of faith by Stewart is that Rogers saw the 1715 French edition of the Lahontan map, that contains the "print error." The leap of faith Goddard and Love commit is that for some reason Rogers elected not to refer directly to Le Page's "belle riviére," but to come up with a fancy "Indian" translation in a language he might know to be not the "correct" one. Both theories come up with an approximation of the word "Ouragan" that then has to be squared by some linguistic legerdemain (never a strong point). I have to say, I am underimpressed :-) I also would like to point out that Stewart's theory does not answer the question "Yes, but what does the word mean?" At least G/L come up with a putative meaning (as does Rees, though his attractive theory suffers from the fact that he can't trace a link to Rogers' primacy in using the word).

In any case, feeble though all theories are, it might be useful to extend the article with all the information we have amassed.--Ereunetes (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this conversation, and although I don't know nearly as much about it as you guys do, I think this info should be included in the article. Put in as opinion, of course. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yes, feeble. That Rogers was responsible for putting the name in writing seems reasonable. Why he did it is unknown, apparently. Perhaps this point should be made clearer in the article here. Stewart suggests that Rogers may have only heard about the Lahontan map and not actually seen it. If Stewart happened to guess right the word would not have a meaning per se, being more or less a corruption of a typographic mistake. One could say it meant "Wisconsin", a word that is also of uncertain origin and meaning, apparently (Wisconsin#Etymology). Anyway, I also find these theories about Rogers' usage quite speculative at best. Still the article here could be improved in various ways. I'd say I'd just do it, but I probably won't have the time (or brain) for a while. Pfly (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, even if "Oregon" comes from an Indian name for a river it may or may not make sense to ask "what does it mean?" Place names need not mean anything in a particular language. For example, "Thames" is an English name for a river in England, but would it make sense to ask what "Thames" means in English? Native Americans had names for rivers that may or may not have meant anything in their language. As with "Thames", Indian place names often came from the distant past via other languages, distorted over time with original meanings long irrelevant. It's curious that American place names with Indian roots are often assumed to have meant something in the languages of the Indians from whom the words passed into English place names. It seems strange when you think about place names in England and what they mean, if anything, in modern English. Some have obvious meaning--Oxford--some don't. Pfly (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rock of the creeks

This is a internet ( http://aragonesasi.com/historia/nombre2.php ) place where he talk from the Aragón name, that maybe not is the origin from the "Oregon (toponym)". If you are having curiosity, then you can to use the google translator. The spanish word Aragon came from pre indoeuropean languages in the iberian or vasque Ara (mountain, rock, blackthorn) and gon (river, creek). Aragón is the name of a river, a valley and a country, in the high mountain of the Pyrenees:

Las fuentes del río Aragón (o, mejor, "ríos", porque son dos: uno que desciende por Canfranc y, otro, por Echo -una vez más digo que la h de Hecho es tan herejía como ponerle a un Santo Cristo un tricornio de la Guarcia Civil-), llamado Aragón Sub-ordán ("accesorio", "subordinado"); las fuentes, digo, de este río dual nacen del mismo macizo montañoso, con doble curso hacia el E. y hacia el OE., formando casi una curva, que se cierra en San Ciria, en la canal (canal, como río, es femenino en aragonés) de Berdún. Y, a esa doble "personalidad" del río, responde su nombre, que es plural en el idioma de que procede: el ibérico o vasco-ibero. Y, en su grafía primitiva, es Ara-ue-on, pronunciado Aragüeon (todavía, hoy, en el habla judeo-hispano-marroquí o Hahitia, la palabra fragua -y las análogas a ésta- se escribe fragua y se pronuncia como la primera, prevaleciendo la grafía arcaica española, según nosotros mismos hemos allí comprobado). Pero, deshaciendo el diptongo ue en o (como, de hueso, "osamenta", y, de hueco "oquedad"), resulta Ara-go-on. Así, con dos oes, que no se pronuncian por cacofonía, como tampoco se pronuncian, aunque se escriban, las dos oes de "cooperativa", sino que todos decimos coperativa, simplemente. Despejando esto (no hay que olvidar que hacemos un trabajo de vulgarización), señalemos que el on es la desinencia de genitivo de plural en vasco-ibero (la n es signo de este número gramatical -como la s lo es en español- y el on, de genitivo); el güe o gua (la a primera es intensiva, como en a-palear, de "palo"; a-cabar, de "cabo", y significa genéricamente eso: agua... "agua corriente", que es río. En documentos antiguos de Sangüesa -otro compuesto de güe o gua, "río" - se llama, al Aragón, el Góa o Guá Mayor, por ser el río más caudaloso de los tres que allí se juntan: el Irati, el Onsella y el Aragón. Y como ara vale en ibero "peña" o montaña (Aralar, Ara-naz, Ara-n, etc.), ya tenemos aclarados los tres componentes del Ara-go-n, que significa por tanto: Ríos de la montaña, o, de la montaña ríos, literalmente, antepuesta la palabra "regida" a la "regente", según se hace en latín (Dei gratia), en inglés (Robert-son, el "hijo de Roberto") y en español, aunque sólo en la versificación: "del ave las plumas", y aun en prosa: cornicorto, cuelli-largo, etcétera. Igual valor y significación tienen: el río Arga, por Argua, y los varios Arvas o Arruas (que malamente suelen escribirse con b) de Biel, de Farasdués, etcétera. Esa es, pues, la etimología de nuestro Aragón...

Thank you for a fascinating link! Here is a direct link to the English translation via Google Translate Reading now… -Pete (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Oolichan Trail

Doesn't seem to be much love here for the "Oolichan Trail" theory, just a two line mention of Bryam and Lewis' 2001 OHS Quarterly article on it, despite a followup article in winter 2002 according to Google, and this scholarly paper endorsing the idea: https://aashley.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/8/2/4382474/oolichan_paper_mirjam.pdf I particularly like the note that the Oolichan trail was spoken of in points east by journeying Cree speakers, who, like east asians, don't distinguish L from R, and so spread the near legendary stories of the "Oorichan Trail", to the land where the oilfish were bountiful. And as it turns out this western terminus was actually Bella Coola Inlet, perhaps this is a reason why for Oregonians the idea has been quietly buried. 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:689F:66BE:CDA8:3B6B (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)justsomeWikiReader

Irish origin of Oregon

The origin is O’Regan. The clan Hy Riagain’s territory and subsequently, Parrish, was named “Oregon”. Exactly that spelling. Irish were amongst the first settlers in Oregon.

the Parrish of Oregon in Ireland is now called Rosenallis. 66.8.220.147 (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)