Talk:List of country-name etymologies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Canadian provinces

I restored the latest version that included the etymologies for Canadian provinces because they weren't listed alphabetically like countries but as sub-points to Canada, just like provinces of Denmark, the Netherlands & Britain were included under their respective country name.

I believe that it's a good thing to include province names here, too, because a) some Canadian provinces are several times as big as European countries and b) some people already consider their province as independent or would like it to be, e. g. Quebec, Alberta. Junesun 07:52 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Adding Canada's provinces is IDIOTIC. Why dont you go ahead and add their counties too – Im sure some are larger than Liechtenstein and Luxembourg. While youre at it, name all the primary administrative divisions of ALL countries. They should be removed – Immediately. -tridesch

I'm not going to add Canadian counties or German states because neither do they seek independence nor are they big. No offense to Luxembourg and the like but when saying that Canadian provinces are several times as big as European countries, I was referring to the average European country. E. g. Quebec is SEVEN times as big as the UK. Besides I believe that these etymologies are quite important because they can't be found on the English internet – try a Google search.

Finally, may I suggest that you adopt a user name, if they haven't kicked you out yet? I like to know who I am 'talking' to. - Junesun 08:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Its people who writer on things which about which they have NO personal knowledge who should be, as you said "kicked out". Who cares if you know who youre talking to – my opinions are apparently correct. I added 9/10's of all the entries to this list from the time i formed it and only once – in the case of "holland" did i appear to give a possibly wrong derevation. – Tridesch 08:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

This is an open-source community. If you want a copyright for what you wrote, make a homepage or write a book. On a single day I contributed as many entries as everybody else before but I don't make as much fuss about it because I'm quite content to contribute the things I know to Wikipedia, a collection of wisdom from thousands of sources.

Nothing you've written isnt going to change the fact that Canada's provinces arent countries. Who are you to even try judging an administrative distict's size so you can deem it a "country"? Doesnt anyone else agree here? They're not countries. This guy will eventually have an etymology added for every subdivision on earth, and the page will be of no use to anyone.

Oh, how nice of you not to add separate entries for each state of the US – gag.

What is it about them that makes them inferior to nowheresville canada?

Despite your high opinions of your additions, there garbaage. – and cant possible be maintained. tridesch

They are in fact big. They also aren't countries. See namespace and Wikipedia:Relevance. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Individual entries

Actic?

Actic isnt a country – its a type of climate. - tridesch

The Arctic is the area around the North Pole of our planet. Although it isn't considered a country – just like Antarctica – it is huge and it's inhabitated. - Junesun 08:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

The Arctic isnt now, nor has it ever been a COUNTRY – (THIS IS A LIST OF """"COUNTRIES"""" – why dont you add Boreal, Tundra, Savanna, and "quite pleasant" to the list? As for Canada – you're wrong. Am glad you mentioned German bundeslaender – since places like Saxony and Thuringia have far more right to being added to the list as "COUNTRIES" than regions which have never been recognised as such like "British Columbia" and Ontario. Its a slippery slop when you get into adding provinces – you will the list as long as an entire encyclopedia – though i realize youd like to decide which administrative districts get added to a list of "COUNTRIES" based on your feeling about "size" – Which people in Quebec and Alberta dont realise that their territories are part of Canada? – Tridesch 08:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

I explained my criteria for adding entries to this list to you already. Canadian provinces enjoy much more autonomy than German Bundesländer, they are much larger and many of them strive to be independent. Their status is countries is certainly more justified than the one of Italian villages or those newly-founded countries with virtually no own space and recognition only by others like them (countries of the so-called "5th world").

I won't let this list grow too long. If I wanted to add the etymologies for the states of the USA for example, I'd create an extra page and just refer to it here.- Junesun 16:25 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Antarctica is inhabited. But just like Arctic and the Canadian provinces, it doesn't really belong on this page. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan

The first answer given about the origin of Afghanistan's name is not the same first answer given in the link that says "ORIGINS OF THE NAME AFGHANISTAN"......In other words the "ORIGINS OF THE NAME AFGHANISTAN" talks about a link with Sanskrit as the FIRST example.....But the article doesnt use the Sanskrit example as the first example 71.119.251.100 01:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As well it shouldn't. The etymology of Afghanistan is assuredly Arabic. Links to Sanskrit are conjectured but not certain. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Albania

Why are there two entries for Albania?

Taku – NEVER delete other people's Talk comments. If you have a problem with my question, discuss it. It's an innocent question, and I don't appreciate your deleting it. -- Zoe

Albania – the list has only just been alphabetised, and the second person to add an "Albania" entry probably didn't notice the first one. I don't know which is accurate, so I left both.

Albania doesnt mean "land of the (white) mountains" – it means land of the mountain people. -Tridesh

The etymology of "Albania" refers just to white mountains, not people. Check your source. - Junesun 08:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and – "white mountains" is redundant. While your sitting in 'linguistics class' – maybe you flip through and look up "ALP" in something. Albania was named by mountaineers who descended from inland to a coast which lower and still populated by people speaking vulgar latin – the genesis of the toponym occured when the new population claimed the land for themselves. Now Albania encompasses both the old inland area and the coast. Check out the book "kosovo" by noel something or another – balkan studies was one of my concentrations. – Tridesch 08:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Nice and pretty, why don't you explain Albania's etymology at the list?? Especially explain why the Latin has to be translated as "mountain people" and not "white (mountains)", just because the people who named it came from the mountains. While you're at it, explain why Guanahani should be translated as "Columbus' island" because he named it. - Junesun 16:25 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Again it isnt white and mountain – the root meant simply mountain, and in other senses white. Tridesch

Albania > Arbania > Arvania > Arvanites (= "Albanians" in Greek)> Arvanut > Arnavut (= "Albanian" in Turkish) > Arnavutluk ("Albania" in Turkish) Böri (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If we were including the etymology of the Turkish names here, cool. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Albion

I'm sure this comes from latin 'white' in reference to the white cliffs of Dover. ArdClose 15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Andorra

Andorra comes from "Anderexo", found in a old text. In basque, andere: lady

Cite? — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Armenia

Armenia = Hayastan < Hayasa (Hayasa-Azzi) ? Böri (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No? — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Austria

I don't believe that "Empire in the East" is correct, but it should give "East of the Empire". This is historically probable. 62.47.55.122 (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

In Medieval times, Austria was the Marchia Orientalis (eastern borderlands) of HRE. This was translated into the local dialect as Ostarrîchi, which is the origin of both modern German Österreich and English/Latin "Austria." The fact that reich means "empire" in modern German is just coincidence. Kauffner (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it comes from Austrasia? Random user 8384993 (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, Kauffner had it, but the article still needed cleaning up and a hatnote to Name of Austria. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Baker Island?

Entry on Baker Island reads:

Baker Island (territory of the United States of America): named after Michael Baker, of New Bedford, who claimed to have discovered it in 1832 (it had actually been discovered before then).

Which New Bedford is being referenced here? There are multiple places with this name. A cursory web search failed to reveal the answer. Kevyn 11:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've no idea to be honest. I got the info from 'Jane's Oceanaia' webapage. - sdrawkcab

Haven't you guys read "Moby Dick"? The New Bedford referenced here is obviously New Bedford, Massachusetts, one of greatest sailing cities in the world and indeed the world capital of whaling in the 19th century.

Pasquale 09:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question is moot. Shouldn't be on this namespace anyway. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The list is supposed to be etymologies of country names, not place names. It is a long stretch of logic to call Baker Island a country. Should this (and similar entries) be deleted? Otherwise we will have screeds of cities, rivers, creeks, mountains, and whatnot spilling over into hundreds of possible pages. Bathrobe 05:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

the idea is to have all political entities: countries, territories etc. Baker, Howland, Plamyra etc count as US territories – seperate from America itself unlike, say Hawaii, hence it goes on here just as the Falklands or the Faroes do. 81.131.0.199 05:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)sdrawkcab

I totally agree, there should be a strict policy of only entering autonomous nations recognised by the UN. Hence, Occitania and the Faroe Islands, and even England would have to be moved. A suggestion is "List of regional name etymologies in [country]".--Henrik46 03:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Belarus

As far as Belarus, I took changed the "south-west" in the reference to Black Russia back to simple 'western'. I think that in context, if you call the old Yatvingia region of Belarus 'Southwest' your implying there is some other part to the west, like 'northwest'.

If you look at a map, youll see that's not really the case. Tridesch

Biffeche?

this has been removed – perhaps a better place for it would the the Footnotes to History website?

Maybe, if it's not sovereign. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Brazil

Brazil – from the brazilwood tree, which in turn was named because its reddish wood was the color of red-hot embers (brasil in Portuguese).

this is a myth in Brazil; that was probben not to be truth. Fortunnaly, Portugal saves documents from that time, the reason for the name was, how we say in Portuguese "Aquela terra era um brasil" or "that land was very hot" or "...redhot". Portuguese peoele only give the name to the lands they've discovered from a saint name, when they've got no more names of that kind they give a name to the find land with the most proeminent characteristic.

red-hot embers in portuguese is "brasa" or "braseiro", not "brasil". Pedro from Portugal

Brunei

There's an etymology at Brunei Direct, but I shan't put it into the article without confirmation. Anyway, I don't understand how Barunah (said to mean 'excellent') can be from classical Malay, and Barunai (said to be from Varuna, whatever that means) can be from Sanskrit, as the two languages have no known common origin. There's more at Brunet, beginning with the 6th century Chinese name Puni, which had mutated to Berunai by the 14th century. This page says that another Chinese spelling as early as 518 AD was Bun-lai. -- Heron 08:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Well, I'm bulgarian – after reading the "etymology" of Bulgaria there are only 2 things to say:

1. folk
2. English-based

"bulg" is NOT "bulg" in Bulgarian. Sorry, there's no letter in latin to present it – it's more like balkh, eventually bolg in the past – sample: Balkan – the folk name of the Old Mountain – the biggest mountain in Bulgaria.

The etymology is quite questional – I have to recheck the last issues myself – but it's out of question a significant time now that inoculating turkish roots to the Bulgarian language /another English-based add on/ is a topic of the day not more than the Turkish Otoman Empire existence today. --Q2 11:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bulgaria is named after the turkic Bulghars. This in turn may go back to a word meaning "mixed (tribes)" or "rebels" Ybgursey 18:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This name came from the Bulgars. This was a Turkic name. That article says: the name Bulgar is derived from the Turkic verb bulģha "to mix, shake, stir" and its derivative bulgak "revolt, disorder". This is correct! but now, List of country name etymologies -Bulgaria article says different things! (at the beginning it was like that and it was correct: Bulgaria: "land of the tribe formed of many tribes", "Bulg" from a Turkic root meaning "mixed".) / & Bulga- > Bula-(in modern Turkish) = "to mix", please change it! Böri (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria < bulga- (a Turkish word) > bulamak (in modern Turkish) = to mix ,The Bulgars were a Turkic people Böri (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Camaroon

Camaroon comes from the word "camarões"(that's how we call that country), that means "Shrimp". "Prawns" in Portuguese is "Gambas". Pedro from Portugal

Canada

For Canada that was not a joke, that's also the truth. Canada means "Nothing here", may seem a joke or offensive, but when Portugal sailed to the west, they find north america very dall and different from the lands they've discovered. Portugal had explored all Africa, Asia and Brazil. When they sailed to North America, they've think that it was very cold and with unpleasent weather, that didnt assembled in anything to Portugal or to the lands they've discovered. They signed the all continent as "Cá nada" (nothing here), because they were not interrested in that lands. That's why there's no portuguese colonies in North America, altought there are all over the world. The name was in portuguese secret maps (the only country at the time that produced believal maps). A portuguese saylor selled (by treason) it to the French and they speeled the name as "Ca nadá" (like the french do). I'm sorry if you find it offensive. But that's the truth. Do you thnik that came from a local tribe? HAH!

If you don't believe me, please try to read from independent and historical sources. Pedro from Portugal

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Portuguese explorers really had discovered North America long before 1492. If your explanation were true, then you need to explain why the French used the name Canada for only one, initially fairly small, part of New France (it's only a series of historical accidents that lead to the name being applied to the vast nation it's used for now). Or, for that matter, have used it at all. Wouldn't they want to conceal where they learned of its existence from? Calling it "Canada" would seem to be a big red flag practically boasting to Portugal "We stole your map!" Surely they'd've concealed it by coming up with a new name! And if they had applied the name from the map, wouldn't that be what they'd call all of North America? It makes no sense that they'd initially only use it for the area around the city of Quebec. Nik42 (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Colombia

It is affirmed "Named after the explorer Christopher Columbus, despite the fact that he never actually set foot in the country."

This is partly true. He never set foot on the current coasts of Colombia, but looking back in time, Colombia was a much bigger country. More important, Panama, on which Columbus set foot on his fourth voyage, was part of Colombia until its secession in November 1903. [1]

Is this enough to correct the paragraph on Colombia's name origin? agarzon

Yes, if by correct you meant "insert 'present-day'". — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Croatia

An interesting message on "cybalist" on this (maybe the meaning should be added to this page): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/3009

This etymology is dubious at best. Indeed, like the Serbs, the Croats were originally tribal subdivisions of the Sarmatians or the Scythians, both of which were Iranian-speaking. The Sarmatians were known to the Greeks as Sarmatae or Sauromatae. Their major tribal groups were the Alani, Taiphali, Iazyges, and Roxolani. The reason Croats, Serbs, and other Sarmatian tribes became Slavic-speaking is that only the ruling elite of these tribes was actually of Iranian stock. The rest of the populace consisted of a Slavic-speaking subaltern class of farmers and servants. Eventually, the ruling elite lost its language and adopted the language of the populace.

The claim that *sarmat- is parallel to *xarwat-, being in fact the same name in two different Indo-Iranian languages: an "s-language" (Indic) and an "x-language" (Iranian) is, in my opinion, preposterous. How did the Iranian Sarmatae end up with an Indic form of the same name as their Croatian subtribe, if they were Iranian-speaking? Note that Iranian-speaking tribes, whether Scythian or Sarmatian, had long held sway in the Eastern European steppes. And, even though recent scholarship has identified an ancient Indic component in the so-called "farming Scythian tribes" (not actually Scythian) west and east of the Sea of Azov (respectively, the Sindoi and the Maeotae), the latter's influence was minor, in that they were subjects of the Scythians, and it is highly unlikely that they would have trasmitted to the Greeks an Indic form of an ethnic name which the Croatian subtribe would have kept in its Iranian form.

The message on "cybalist" is somewhat misleading when it says that an Iranian etymology doesn't mean that "Croatians are of Scythian stock". It all depends of what you mean by that. Their ruling class certainly was of Iranian-speaking stock, just as the ruling class of the Slavic Bulgarians was Bulgar, i.e. related to the Huns and Khazars. The same message is however correct in debunking "the Arachosia story" as a romantic, nationalistic myth. The Sarasvati-Arachosia-Hrvat connection is in fact not just "arbitrary", but simply fantastic. While the origin of *xUrvat- is most probably Iranian, the proposed etymology from *xar-wa(n)t- 'having many women, abounding in women' (like the connection with Sarmatae) remains as yet unconvincing (although I have to say it's got one thing going for it: the apparent connection to the myth of the Amazons!). Pasquale 19:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as Croatia and Serbia and their Sarmation connexion, I think this deserves attention.

Ha ha, but its a question that wont be solved in our lifetimes. Tridesch

Egypt

It was my understanding from reading years ago that Egypt is a Greek word meaning "The House of Ptah" (ecos being "house" in Greek)

Egypt – Not sure – more research needed

The entry on Egypt is very misleading. The Ancient Egyptians called the country Khemet, meaning Black Land, from the colour of the mud brought down the Nile each year at flood time. The Greeks called the country Aiguptos, which I'm fairly certain comes from the Greek aigupios meaning vulture – Egypt being the Land of the Vulture to the Greeks. I don't think the Greeks would have named the country after anything to do with Ptah. The modern Egyptians call the country al-Misr (Jumhuriyat Misr al-Arabiya), which I think means "the country across the border" (from Arabia) in Arabic. Unless anyone violently disagrees with me I will change the entry. Adam 15:29, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ecuador

Hey... I think the explanation on the name of Ecuador is a loop, a dead end street so to say... and anyways the name doesn't come from the word "equator", which, as far as I know, came after the country, and not the other way around. A better explanation would be good. ArquiWHAT

I don't quite follow, are you saying that Ecuador was named before people knew where the Equator was? While they did not have it down to the exact position, the ability to determine latitude (and hence, the Equator) has been around for a very long time before Sucre's time. --Bletch 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Think about the meaning of EQUATOR. It is something that EQUATES, that is, balances the hemispheres. Gee Eight 19:50 UTC 3 March 2006

Although, Equator / Ecuador is originally “Aqua D’Oro” which means gold water, derived from a place located near the hills or the mountains and believed that these little falls of water contains gold. Due to the fact that (Aquador) is considered the center of the earth, and the equator is running through or nearly, therefore named after. Hassan El-Meligy 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Cite? — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

England?

I would like to bring up the possibility that the etymology of England might be "land of meadows" from the Scandinavian (especially Danish) eng meaning meadow; and land meaning land/place/country. I have no official source from this other than two online Danish dictionaries. If you enter either eng or land into either of them you will find the same results as I have put forth here. Here are the links:

1. Online English to Danish to English Dictionary
   
2. English-Danish-English dictionary online

If possible, it would be great for someone to help find an official source or argument to back-up this possibility. Thanks -- 81.208.167.48 18:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Or just move it to a different namespace. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Formosa?

Is not a country and has never been a synonym for Taiwan the state. Removed per WP:REL. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

France

I just want to say that the entry for France is wrong. The name does come from the Frankish tribe, but the Franks took their name from the Francisca which was an axe used both for throwing and for hand to hand combat. The 'frankon' is not a weapon nor a spear, it is a made up term. It does not exist. You would think people would not add information they base on conjecture into what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.67.250 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't "Franks" refer to them calling themselves "free men"? Originally Franc, which also became Franche-Comte, franchise, etc. That's what I've always heard, at least. Adam Bishop 02:29 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

But that is what it says. Are you thinking about the two "land of"? yeah, that seems a bit redundant to have translation of plain English. --Menchi 04:09 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It didn't say that when I wrote that comment, though :) Someone changed it after I posted, I guess. Adam Bishop 04:30 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Georgia

I am baffled by some of your etymologies, [Tridesch.] for example, that Persian Gurj is derived from a term meaning 'mountainous'. You should at least say WHAT that term is and IN WHAT LANGUAGE it means 'mountainous', don't you think? Otherwise, in my opinion, it's just best to say "etymology unknown". Pasquale 18:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Guri" is PIE for mountain Proto Slavic=Gora Proto Baltic=Gire, Avestani (ancestral form of modern Iranian languages)= Gairi, Albanian = gur 'stone', Sanskrit = Guru 'heavy' and Acala (same root) mountain, West SLavic Pagorek = hill, Russian for upper Qarabag/ Artsakh = NaGORNO Karabakh., I didnt need to look that up though its what i learned in history courses about the name for Georgia. Tridesch

As for Georgia, I DARE you to go to your local University library, do the research, and not find several texts agreeing with me. Are they correct? – how would I know? – Im not a linguist, I just know what the prevailing opinion is among scholars – if they're right or wrong, thats another area where I honestly dont have the ability to judge. Persians having named the territory beyond the lesser caucasuan mountain wall "Mountain Land", how unreasonalble – but then reason wasnt critical considering that scholars more respected than you have provided the ewtymology. I will say that you seem (and borrowing from Gore here) alittle snippy, considering that you apparently had never even heard of the Gur/mountain derevation which is widely known (wrongly or rightly), only to state now how unworthy my contributions have been. Again, the amount of weight I give your comments is determined by the fact that you drew a blank on georgia, and were therefore of no use in adding to the (albeit trivial) list, where I was at least able to give a commonly held scholarly opinion. What use was your training a linguist, eh Pasquale? none whatsoever. Am I insulting you – not at all, because I at least would ask whether your uselessness on Georgia is your own fault or the fault of the inherent silliness of the page – I dont know. User, tridesch

See, Tridesch, you think this is a game, but I don't. It is precisely because I am not a dilettante that I'd have to think, not twice, but a thousand times before throwing etymologies around. You also constantly distort everything others say. Where did I say that I alone am "the only one capable of understanding the difference between superficial similarity and phonological changes"? All I said was that I consider such an understanding indispensable for sifting through the vast array of etymologies you will find in print, 90% of which are complete garbage. You see, there is a reason why I had not come across the "Mountain Land" etymology for Georgia, i.e. that no serious linguist would cite it. In my heyday, I actually studied Old Persian, Avestan, Sanskrit, and even some Georgian, and indeed never heard of that etymology. So what if Slavic 'gora', Sanskrit 'girih', and Avestan 'gairi' mean 'mountain'? Did Iranian peoples such as the Medes or the Persians come up with this name for Georgia? OK. Then, you have to show how Iranian 'gairi' becomes 'Gurj' or 'Gurji' (and I don't see how it can), otherwise the etymology is worthless.

By the way, I did do precisely what you cavalierly and carelessly, not to mention falsely, accuse me of NOT doing: I actually constructed a valid etymology for Persian 'Gurj'! I wrote as follows: "probably related to the Armenian words for Georgian and Georgia, respectively Vir and Vrastan. (There are other cases in which a Persian word-initial gu- is derived from an earlier wi- or wa-.) Both the Persian and the Armenian words appear to be related to the ancient name of the country Iberia, with loss of the initial i- and substitution of w or v for the b of Iberia." This is a much-abbreviated version of a hypothesis that would take pages to explain in detail, but it is in my opinion a valid etymology for Persian 'Gurj'. However, now, thanks to you, "your" article reads: "probably derived from the PIE term meaning 'mountainous' and [it continues with what I wrote -- see above]". See, now that has become pure nonsense (even if you can't see it), because the statement is completely contradictory; and now both you and I look like idiots (and I don't particularly want to look like one). Which is why I have not and am not going to add any more etymologies to "your" article.

But, then again, there's a lot more questionable stuff in the article, that we haven't talked about yet. Where do we stand? You can continue playing with the country name etymologies, but I will pass, because I don't see the point. And, by the way, I am not annoyed at you. You are mistaken if you think I was engaging in a personal attack (that's what YOU do). I was trying to give a sober assessment of this list, simply because I care about the Wikipedia and what's in it. The assessment is addressed to you for the simple reason that you say that "about 3/4 of everything on this page was written by [you]". So there! (to borrow from your language) Pasquale 21:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as Georgia, whatever (and hypothetically lets say you're correct) 'serious linguists' think about it, the 'mountain' etymology is commonly held. I left 'vir',because i dont usually delete other peoples remarks if i have no idea where theyre comming from. For all i know it could be the another case such with cognates between French and English where the V becomes G automatically. What is it, the Guillaume and William law?

I appreciate that you find wikipedia serious – but i still have to put it too you that unless you are prepared to ignore ALL of the commonly held etymologies such as Gur meaning mountain for Gergia/Kartli/Kartvelia, then this kind of list does not lend itself to exacting linguistic science.

How refreshing, by the way, that you never heard of the most commonly cited etymology for Georgia because your only interested in pure linguisitc research. Im sure neither you nor any of your esteemed colleques would EVER check an even incorrect historical reference to start your research – WHAT sort of lie is that?

Germany

The changes to "Germany" were executed by an imbecile.- and so im changing it back. Tridesch

I'm pretty certain the entry for "Germany" is also wrong. Germany is not a German name, it is a Latin name, Germania, given to the area east of the Rhine by the Romans. The name means "neighbouring," as in, the land neighbouring Roman Gaul. It is related to the English word germane, meaning related or relevant to. I will check further on this. Adam 12:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

An anon IP added this to the Germany entry:

" Also said to be the name of a Celtic tribe that lived in the area before Teutonic settlement.

(EDIT NOTE: Does anyone else know anymore about this?)"-- BCorr¤Брайен 13:06, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

And I removed the editorial comment: "This word may come from the Germanic "gar" ('spear') plus the Latin and Germanic "man" ("land of the spear men") or the Latin word "germanus", meaning "brother" or "neighbor" (i.e. neighbor to the Celts). Note that these are "folk etymologies" and cannot be substantiated through any scholarly source." -- BCorr|Брайен 13:24, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but isn't Allemagne (Germany) derived from the Alemannen tribe? 82.82.125.13 22:09, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Germany – The entry of "spear men" for Germany is correct. This has been known for centuries. Germanic tribes often put the word "spear" into their ethnonym – If youd read Beowulf, the very first most basic piece of English literature, you might know this. "brother, neighbor", in places the Roman Empire never reached far even on the Balitc sea, thats crazy. It's not a folk etymology. Tridesch

Greece

Hellas, allegedly means "land of light", which is an extremely dubious claim, given that this resembles no Greek words for "land" or "light".

Actually, Hêlios meant "the sun". See Helios.Bogdan | Talk 19:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I changed it. -- BCorr|Брайен 13:24, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hellas does mean "Land of Light" as well as "People of Light" (Hel-las, where Hel refers to Sun and illumination in general, while las or lad refers to stone/land/people. Note correspondence between Greek "las/lad" and English "land". Hence Hellas is Land of Light/ People of Light.

The well-established etymology for 'Hellenes', which is mentioned in Wiktionary, and is widely reputed and respected, is as follows:

"From Ancient Greek Ἕλλην (Hellen) "Greek", "luminary, bright", from prefix ἑλ (hel) "sun, bright, shiny". (See Helios "sun", electron "amber", etc.). In Greek mythology Ἕλλην, whom the Ἕλληνες (Hellenes) "Greeks" were named after, was the son of Δευκαλίων (Deucalion) and Πύῤῥα (Pyrrha)."

Wikipedia's new proposal, which I erased, is that the above is merely a folk etymology, while the "true etymology" word 'Hellenes' is merely cognate of the English word 'settle'. Not to mention that this is just a bit of a stretch (try, HELLEN and SETTLE are not in the least bit similar), it is perhaps just a little bit convenient that this most ancient name is in fact a cognate of an English word. Why not go all out and say that 'Hellenes' is in fact derived from the word 'English'? What a con.

Greece = Hellas < ela /ila (= "strait" in Luwian) > like "Ilion" (Troy) ; The real Hellas was the land of Akhilleus(Achilles) Böri (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite? — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Guyana

Practically every page I've ever seen says that 'Guyana' and 'Guiana' come form a native word meaning 'land of many rivers/waters'. However, in a Lonely Planet guidebook it says "The entire region takes it name from the Spanish spelling of a Surinamese Indian tribe. 'Wayana' is the corretc name, but the Spanihs write it as 'Juayana' or 'Guayana,' and the English mid-read it as 'Guyana.' The name does not mean 'land of many waters' as if often alleged." So – who's right? Bearing in mind that there are government sites that give the 'many rivers' explanation.

I have that very same guidebook; I was wondering about this myself. --Bletch 20:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly the Lonely Planet, but it's not reliable or authoritative. 'd need to poke around. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hispaniola?

The article says "Little Spain", but the original name "La Española" would actually be the feminine form of "The Spanish" or "The Spaniard" in Spanish. elpincha (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't & never has been a country. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Holland

I still have enormous doubts about the derivation of Holland to Holt. What reason would ancient Germanic tribes have had to name a once barren treeless wasteland after wood? I guarrantee you, there were no trees then, and there are barely any now, in modern times just agricultural flatland. Tridesch

Finally, I am intrigued by what you say about Holland. How do we know that it was treeless, say, two thousand years ago? I'd like to know because, linguistically speaking, "holt" + "land" still seems to be the strongest hypothesis.

If you consider the low-lying land of North and South Holland province, mostly dipping below see level, windblown and hardly stable, then you realize that it was once a marshy shrubby wasteland wasteland like some of the Frisian islands still are, as is also tought in history courses. After I first added "hol" or hollow as the etymology it was changed by a dutchman i guess, but i dont believe he was correct. And its not as though you cant be a scholarly work that also states "hollow", "hole-ly" / marshland. – which makes much more sense. I think if someone wrote even holtland in some rare ancient document it was their own mistake. Holtland or rather "Holsetaland"/'Woodland' was known to be modern Holstein of Schleswig-Holstein in Germany. I dont think there would have been TWO Holsetaland's so very very close to each other.

I will try and say this as delicately as I can, and with all due respect. Everyone knows their own field the best. I happen to have been a linguist for decades and to have spent some fifteen years studying Indo-European historical linguistics, and I can tell you the following with absolute confidence. You may be a historian, but you are not an etymologist, and you do not have the wherewithal, or the necessary training, to evaluate an etymology. This is bound to be inevitably obvious to anyone who does have training in historical linguistics and etymology. This "List of country name etymologies" may be your baby, but is of little value to any serious researcher. It is at best an amusing collection of historical trivia, but the etymologies given range from the firmly established to the crackpot lunatic, with little evidence of proper vetting for scientific validity, because the skills that are required for such vetting are not there. Furthermore, each time you make an addition, you throw in dozens of misspellings and malapropisms, which do not look very good in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Finally, if I may ask, why do you not log in as a registered user? Pasquale 17:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lol. Ok, I will suggest this then: Before you you go casting stones because of my lack of training, wherewithal, and ability – perhaps you would cite some of the numerous mistakes Ive made on the list. Were you originally referring to my comments about Holsetaland?

The fact is, I didnt just draw "Marsh Land" out of a hat (Actually, I havent pulled anything out of a hat.) I read it in a history of the Low Countries.

One reason I had to object to 'forest land' is because i've been to Holland, and am, just in a lowly 'historical' type of way, acquainted with the country. Lemme say this, etymology cant always exist in a vacuum – history, and in this case history of geography and geology is important – If you as a PIE linguist can disprove "Hollow", (despite scholarly works disagreeing with you)then please do. Can I ask if you speak Dutch or German, Id be interested in whether your opinion-as-linguist also corresponds with that as Low German or Dutch, German or Frisian speaker? How do you account for the T in Holt having been lost even as its removal would have produced a word widespead in the Germanic area which always meant "Hole". Unfortunately, I dont have an old franconian dictionary, but I DO have middle saxon and several frisian dictionaries which agree with me. (As a linguist, and trying to be delicate here, you wouldnt be expected to have the wherewithal to know that Frisia Magna preceeded Preceded Frankish polities in Holland) Hmmmm, If modern Dutch, Old Saxon, and Frisian all agree on what hol means, i dont think i'd need to do an advanced triangulation to have to agree with scholars who have put forth 'Hollow'. To be honest, you're entirely correct about the list being "at best, an amuzing collection of historical trivia", and are probably also right about some of the etymologies orginating with crackpot lunacy. Scientificly little validity? – you just noticed this now?

What percentage of the etymologies that can be found in scholarly sources have actually been proved to not even scientific certainty, but well, beyond reasonalble doubt. Let's be honest here.

...I dont doubt your contribution to whatever the more serious lingusitics projects you work on are. I dont usually worry as much as I should about misspellings, knowing that Wiki-holics sweep through all the recent edits, and will defend my malapropisms as better than alot of the crap that I've found on the page. I think alot of the content of the page has been written by people who havent finished college yet, which isnt to put anyone down, but it comes across very clearly. All in all, malapropisms included, whatever they are, I take no small amount of credit for the page being a source of amusement, and for pulling together a fun body of facts that a person might once have had to have wasted alot of time searching for individually. Ok then, knowing as we both do that the list is 'an amusing collection of historical trivia', with me admittedly contributing for amusement only, why is it that you care at all, or contribute at all? Are you saying that a trained linguist such as yourself could purge the page of its flaws? – making it an um, true expression of linguistic science? I doubt it. If half the etymologies arent 'crackpot' folk-etymologies, I'd be surprised. The ones I personally have added, are at least widespread. Personally, I dont care if the page is killed (as one visitor has suggested it should be), since amusement to an eccentric segment of the masses aside, I've had my fun, and have a copy in my files now. To answer your question as to why I DONT edit as a registered used, why DO YOU edit as a registered user, since the steps needed to log in are unnecessary? I only started signing at the bottom of my comments after that brainless German women accused me of hiding something. Seriously, id like to know – why do you log in? User, tridesch

Tridesch, I assure you this has nothing to do with being snippy and it is not related to any one etymology in particular, but, in fact, all of them. Everything you say makes it obvious you do not have an understanding of what is involved in establishing an etymology. This has nothing to do with whether a specific etymology you cite is correct, probable, improbable, or absurd, because you cannot tell the difference. It would take too long to explain, but I guarantee you any person with any significant amount of training in the field will confirm this. For starters, here is Tip #1 (of some 10,000 you need): the soundness of an etymology has nothing to do with superficial similarity, but it has a lot to do with the rules of phonological change specific to the languages involved in the transmission. If you want to find out more, you can take a couple of courses in historical linguistics and then you'll begin to understand. Pasquale 18:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pasqual, what I am saying is that the problems with 'all of them' is a problem with country-name etymology in general. Ultimately, the question is what makes you think its appropriate criticising me for not being able to determine whether an etymology is true or not – when I am not the source, when the sources are authorities more respected than yourself.

In fact, I have had a course (ok just one) in diachronic linguistics and worked on the Grimm's law soundshifts in the germanic languages and on the development of French from the latin. You must really think alot of yourself to think YOU alone as a linguist are the only one capable of understanding the difference between superficial similarity and phonological changes. Again, I didnt make up a single one of the etymologies I added, but drew them from either hardcopy scholarly sources or memories of them. Why the annoyance with me? Highness, why dont you do what your apparently paid for then, and in cases where you think "hey thats improbable", then go about constructing a valid etymology instead of criticising men long dead who thus far have proven your betters. You who stress the need for expertise seem incapable of using it constructively to make any legitimate academic discrediting of the work of others. You have failed worse than a single other person who contributed to this list in as much as you ARE the expert and have not created an etymology from your own banmk of original thought. so there. tridesch

As for Holland, the issue is more complicated, and you have some good points, if not in terms of the linguistic analysis of the possible etymologies, at least on the factual, common-sense front. But your notion that there couldn't have been two "Holt-lands" near each other is silly. (And, BTW, how does 'Holsetaland' become the equivalent of 'Holt-land'? What do you do with the two extra syllables? The '-seta-' part is probably equivalent to '-satia' in Alisatia [=Alsace] i.e. "settlers", thus 'Holsetaland' = "holt-settlers' land", whatever 'holt' actually means. But, say, isn't Holstein marshy as well?) For that matter, one of the three ancient subdivisions of Lincolnshire, in England, is called "Holland" (main city: Boston), that too usually derived from 'Holt-land', and that too very marshy. It may be that Old Germanic 'holt' meant 'marsh' as well as 'wood, grove, copse', or maybe there were two words 'holt'. In any case, this Germanic word does not have a clear PIE etymology, so it may come from a substratum word. Pasquale 21:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good points. But to address Holstein/Holland, I used 'Holseta' just as a norse varient of Holstein. But whichever form of the word you look at, it was the t/s/z element made the term mean wood. Youve decided to disount that, and add the S to a root meaning seat or settle. Well what happend to "HolT"? Also, you should be careful by giving the impression that wood and grove are equivalent, because "grove" is a BREAK in the wood, a Hollow. This is PRECISELY the reason why some germanic languages use the HOL form for "Wood" OR "Grove". If you're right about Holland meaning Woodland, then who knows, maybe it was named afte people who arrived from some woodland, because i highly doubt there was a forest there. In ancient times, it was a considered a muddy, marshy, waste neither ocean nor land. Theres the difference between Holland and Holstein. While the coast of Holstein features marshes, the Dithmarschen for instance, it was forested in its interior.

Again, if you reach back in time with a linguist's percective to the earliest centuries of the Germanic languages "Hol" and "Holt", Hole and Wood are always right there side by side. Remove a letter, and the one becomes the other. THats why I dont think a land called Woodland would have suddenly loss the final T consonent. If you look at modern Friesland (Modern West frisian being one of the only germanic or Frisian languages where the Hol/Holt difference truism doesnt hold true (but it DOES in Frisians more conservative northern dialects), I think youll find all of the tree related toponyms (usually varients of wold/wald)are found on stable higher land – inland, thats not what holland was.

Remember also that the Double ll indicates there were two L sounds, it wasnt just Holtland but sounded at one point like Hohl-le lont. Holteland doesnt exist in the Germanic area – answering your question as to the extra syllable in Holseta. Hol or Halland, as you know are common.

See, Tridesch, in every statement you make that bears on historical linguistics, you shoot from the hip without really understanding what you are saying. Let me take just ONE of them (of several I could take) and show you how it is that you don't understand what you are saying.

With regard to the series Germanic "holt"/German "Holz"/"Holsetaland", you say "it was the t/s/z element made the term mean wood." What t/s/z element? There is no t/s/z element (and if that element really was so vague, it would be of little value). There is only a t element. It's Germanic "holt" – period. LATER, Germanic "holt" becomes "Holz" in HIGH German, according to a very well-known REGULAR (!) sound change known as the second Lautverschiebung (which features, among other changes, 't' becoming 'z' or 'ss' according to very specific conditions). That sound change does NOT take place in LOW German, Anglo-Frisian, and most certainly not in North Germanic (which includes Danish). There is no way that the 's' in "Holsetaland" can correspond to the 't' in "holt", in the same way as the 'z' in "Holz" obviously does. That is why, if you want to see "wood" in "Holsetaland", you have to explain it as "Holt-seta-land". [NOTE: Again, it is REGULAR (!) in Germanic for a 'ts' cluster to become 's' -- there are plenty of examples.] Which is why I introduced the "settlers" as in the etymology of "Alisatia" ("foreign settlers"). [Again, an early Germanic -sati- can show up as -set- in Norse.]

The reason why Holland can easily reflect "Holt-land" (although, of course, it doesn't HAVE TO) is that it is universally very easy for an 'ltl' (or 'ldl') cluster to be simplified to 'll' (whereas it would not be easy for an 'lsl', 'lzl', or other such consonant cluster). Of the many family names that end in -lland (Belland, Bolland, Bulland, Folland, Galland, Gilland, Helland, Hilland, Kalland, and many more), all of which must reflect old placenames, some may well reflect the simplification of such clusters; e.g. Kalland may well come from "Kalt-land" (although it doesn't have to). All of these complexities need to be kept in mind, but what you can never lose sight of is the known regular phonological changes specific to the languages involved and the time periods involved. Again, it could well be that a word meaning 'wood' also meant 'marsh' in Old Germanic. In fact, it is at least as easy as for a word meaning 'hole' or 'hollow' to mean 'marsh'! Pasquale 22:48, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous – You say there is only T and then go on to explain its later mutations to S and Z. T/S/and Z are all equivalent elements in this case. I should know, I have lived in Aachen, a city in Germany on the Dutch border where some prefer S's and some prefer T's. You know what your entirely correct about many changes not taken place WITHIN languages, because the changes are what caue one language to become another. Again, the case of Aachen being a transitional zone between Dutch and German.

Also, I would be the first to jump on your consonental cluster bandwagon outside of your decision to backtrack and make "wood" and "marsh" mean the same thing) if you could offer some shred of proof other than 'its happened in other cases' and therefore, and IF it werent so stunningly obvious that there have NEVER EVER EVER EVER do you here me EVER ! been forests in Holland, how crazy your pre-backtrack argument sounds when "Forestland" is applied to a giganitic windswept beech. "'wood' also could have also meant 'marsh' in old germanic?"- Dont do me any favors and agree with me with one hand on the keyboard, and disagree with the other. I thought this argument started when I first wrote "Marsh Land" or "Hollow" land. In fact I thought it was I who first drew a comparison between hole and grove/absence of 'trees'.

Then why have you now decided that Im wrong because I could be right? – Im finished with this page, Until – next tme Im in Holland I will take pictures of the two or three trees in Limburg for you. Pehaps you could upload it to the Holland etymology with a big exclamation point to show everyone that (impossible as it may be) you were right. That holland was named for its vast forests and woodlands – argh – NEVER!

Tridesch, I have nothing more to add. You can re-read what I have previously written and try to actually understand it for a change. And your pictures from Holland will be as irrelevant as the picture of a "hole" in the ground. Pasquale 16:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hungary

Why did you eliminate the fact that Hungary – land of the 10 spears was a reference to an alliance of ten tribes? are you stupid? -Tridesh

Hungary < On-Ogur ok (in Turkish)= "tribe, arrow", Ogur = "tribes, arrows" on (in Turkish) = "10"

Magyar <? Where did it come from? < Mansi ? Böri (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

India

Link for reference to Bharat's etymology. Gyan 00:30 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

I am removing A third possibility is that it derives from the name of the god "Bharat", brother of the famous god Rama. from the India bullet. There is nothing in Ramayana and its commentaries to suggest that Rama's half-brother gave his name to the country. The only legend that is popularly quoted is Bharat(India) originating from the name of Dushyanata's son. (This, surprisingly was quoted second among the three in the article and I am not very sure about the veracity of the first too, though I am reasonably sure about the third NOT being the source.) chance 11:11, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

was Bharatha the half brother of lord Rama, namesake of the hindu holy book Ramayana???

yes, infact there are 3 Bharatas in mythology, but I'm not clear about which of them India has been named. See Bharata. Jay 14:12, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

India is named after Bharata, the son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala. -- Paddu 14:13, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for that. It could also be Bharata, the son of Rishabha, who is believed to have reborn as Jada Bharata. -- Paddu 08:55, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Iran

The 'arya' as in 'free' or 'noble' is well-known as the correct etymology for Iran. Why this "sons of sun" garbage? -tridesh

Tridesch, I suggest you be more careful in your choice of words. My main source is the Berlitz "Encyclopedia of language"(translated literally from German, the English title *might* be a bit different), which is a standard book for students of linguistics...

Check [this history] of the word "Aryan". It's from the American Heritage dictionary, also a renowned source. Amongst other things, it says that "Aryan", apart from the strict meaning "noble", referred to "the upper crust of ancient Indian society". This part of society referred to themselves as "sons of the sun" much like Egyptian pharaohs did. - Junesun 08:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Israel

I have corrected the bizarre comment about Jacob wrestling with God. The episode in the Bible says he wrestled with a man and later tradition says this man was an angel. I have removed the POV bias political comment on the Palestine entry as well as the unecesary comments on Israel and Palestine entries referring the reader to the other. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not bizarre. It's the actual etymology. The episode in the Bible has no real bearing on the meaning of El in Hebrew. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Italy

I would like to complain about the 19 recent edits by Decius, which amount to little more than vandalism. In particular, he radically altered what was a pretty good description of what is currently known about the etymology of Italy and replaced it with highly questionable material. I submit that it should be restored exactly as it was. There is no Greek word italos meaning 'bull', as Decius states. All that the Greek word Italos ever meant was 'an inhabitant of Southern Italy'. By and large, Decius commits two serious errors. First, the general policy in the Wikipedia, if you disagree with something, is not to replace the existing version with your own, but maybe to add your version as an alternative. Secondly, I'm afraid Decius does not really understand the point about etymology. Under Germany, for example, a list of alternative forms are given, grouped by roots. One of these is the traditional Slavic root for the name of the country Germany, i.e. Polish Nemetsy, etc. From this list, Decius removed an old Romanian version of that same name (which was valuable information), vandalized the Czech form, and then set up a separate entry that reads Germania (Romanian), as if the modern Romanian name Germania might have a different etymology than Latin Germania! (Notice that in Italian too Germany is Germania, which is not of particular interest since it is of course identical to Latin, and is therefore omitted from this page, while the Italian adjective form Tedesco is listed in the same group as Tyskland, etc., because it is derived from the same root as Old Germanic þiudisk, Old High German diutisc, etc., and is therefore of greater interest). I am afraid that, with such unscientific methods, Decius will not get very far in "identifying" Dacian or any other ancient language. Pasquale 18:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh my, you have been deeply hurt by my edits... I am so "sorry". That etymology of Italy is the standard etymology, son, and I didn't invent one single part of it. That archaic Romanian term (?) for Germany is no longer used at all, so it is misrepresenting. If you don't like that etymology of Italy, please provide a reference that is has been seriously questioned or abandoned: if so, both etymologies will be mentioned. And there is indeed an Ancient Greek word italos that meant 'bull'. It is ridiculous that any Italian should be offended or upset by that etymology: Why is it disagreeable to you? Anyway, provide a credible reference that it has been abandoned: I have references that it has not been abandoned (including Perseus Classical Library, etc.). You are so quick to make "attacks", which shows you are nervous and anxious. Calm down and drink some wine. Decius 19:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Italos meaning 'bull' in Ancient Greek is listed in the 7th Edition of Liddel & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, and in many other sources. Italia (=Italy) also occurs in Herodotus, Italiotes was an ancient Greek term that meant "Greek inhabitants of Italy", Italos occurs in Thucydides, Strabo, et cetera, with the meaning "Italian". The fact that the Oscan name for Italy was Viteliu (related to Latin vitelus, 'young bull, calf, etc.') makes any other etymology very unlikely indeed. But if you have a credible reference for another etymology, provide the reference. Besides, Varro explicitly said that this was in fact the etymology of Italy. Decius 20:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The bull was an animal highly revered by the ancient Romans, a symbol of power and virility, and it was sacred to Jupiter. Some Romans used to bathe themselves in bull's blood to invigorate themselves. I don't see why the etymology should upset even one Italian. But if you have a another, mention it. Decius 20:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Decius, you shoot from the hip very fast and I don't know if I can answer you quite as fast.

(1) I think you are projecting your personal psychology onto others. For your information, I was not "hurt" at all ("deeply" or otherwise) and I couldn't care less about your personal opinions, except to the extent that you try to impose them on the Wikipedia. My only concern is the Wikipedia, not you.

(2) Please don't call me "son", since I could probably be your father.

(3) The etymology linking Italoi (a tribal name which initially applied to a small tribe in a subsection of present-day Calabria) to Latin vitulus (not "vitelus"), meaning "calf", is indeed very old and widely cited, as you say, but that does not necessarily make it right. The ancient Romans cited lots of "etymologies" that have no scientific basis (as in the famous lūcus ā nōn lūcendō, which I believe is from Varro). The fact that Italia is attested since very ancient times in Greek is not evidence for its etymology, so your mention of Herodotus, Thucydides, Strabo, etc. is totally irrelevant. The problem with this traditional etymology is that it is totally predicated on a specifically Greek phonological change, namely the loss of the Indo-European w (of the root *wet- "year", from which Latin vitulus is usually derived, i.e. from Indo-European *wet-olo--, i.e. a "yearling"). Since neither Latin nor any other ancient Italic language loses the Indo-European w, the tribal name Italoi would have to have been borrowed from the Greek language into Latin, which would be perfectly possible, were it not for the fact that there is very ancient Italic epigraphic evidence of the tribal name (without any w). The lack of w in the autochthonous Italic form of the tribal name has called into the question the traditional etymology. In other words, if the tribal name did not have an initial w, then very simply it cannot be related to the family of words which includes Latin vitulus, as well as Oscan Viteliu.

(4) I don't know why you got the idea that I might be somehow "offended or upset" by one etymology rather than another. And what on earth should I be "nervous and anxious" about? Certainly not what I know full well is a long-established, traditional etymology, which has recently come into question. What is indeed ridiculous is that you should attribute such emotions to others. Personally, I have a scientific attitude towards linguistics and etymology, and I don't have a nationalistic bone in my body. Perhaps you are once again projecting, since it is in the Balkans that linguistics and etymology are notoriously mired in nationalism rather than science. There is nothing "disagreeable" to me about the traditional etymology. I was simply saying that it has been called into question in recent decades for the reasons I have stated. That was very plainly explained in the previous text of the etymology of Italy, which you totally deleted, contravening Wikipedia policies. And I stand by my statement that your 19 edits amounted to little more than vandalism, and not specifically in reference to the etymology of Italy.

(5) I am sorry you got the idea I was engaging in a personal "attack". Far from it. However, having worked in linguistics and etymology for a very long time, I can tell pretty quickly if someone is potentially a serious professional in the field or a hopeless amateur. Again, I am sorry, but, with your emotionalism and arrogance, you just don't make the cut. Nothing personal, though.

(6) If you think that your attempts to be facetious while you're being offensive ("I am so "sorry"." or "Calm down and drink some wine.") somehow serve your purpose, you are very wrong. I guarantee you no one's laughing.Pasquale 17:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But what you did not notice is that I did not explicitly state that Italia is from Greek: the text says it is from a non-Latin source. Whatever its source, it is considered to be directly related to the ancient Greek form, if not from Greek (though it may well be), then from an unknown language that also lost PIE 'w'. There is not enough against the traditional etymology for it to be considered disproven, as the previous text in the article implied. It is challenged, and so are many etymologies challenged. Mention of it being disputed is warranted. And a sign of a hopeless amateur is one who thinks "there is no such Greek word" just because he didn't happen to find it in his Greek dictionary. Decius 18:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I repeat, Decius, I am not so sure at all that there is a Greek word italós meaning "bull". While it is true that it is listed in Liddell & Scott (even the small one, for that matter), if you look closely in your big Liddell & Scott, you will see that it cites only two sources: Hesychius and Timaeus. The former is basically a collection of 51,000 rare, peculiar, and often foreign words, called "glosses". The latter also simply glosses the word. As you may know, a gloss is something very different than a real word. A gloss simply means that somewhere, some author says that a certain word means something; for example, Timaeus says that italós means taűros. But nowhere, in thousands of Greek texts, is the word ever actually used in this sense. In Greek, the word italós is only ever used in the meaning "a person from Southern Italy," originally a member of a specific, very small Italic tribe from Calabria. It is odd that Liddell & Scott should have listed what is only a gloss in their dictionary, but so they did. Their dictionary reflects old scholarship and obviously they were taking for granted the supposed connection between the Hesychian gloss (supported by Timaeus) italós = taűros and Latin vitulus "calf".

Secondly, the traditional etymology of Italoi (the small tribe after whom Italy is named) does not hinge at all on whether there is a Greek word italós meaning "bull". As you pointed out, the Greek word Italós (the ethnonym) is very widely attested and from very early times. The traditional etymology rests entirely on the following assumption: the indigenous Italic ethnonym had an initial w- (exemplified by Oscan Viteliu, literally "land of calves"); the Greek form of this ethnonym lost the initial w- in accordance with specifically Greek phonological rules; later, the Greek form of the ethnonym was borrowed into Latin. This is all perfectly fine, as long as there is no evidence to the contrary. But, as it happens, there is ancient Italic epigraphic evidence of the tribal name Italoi (without any w), specifically, if I remember correctly, in an inscription from Calabria that includes the word wino- (with initial w- preserved). Given the age of this inscription, it would be odd that these Italic tribesmen would be using the Greek word for themselves in an inscription in their own language. So, that's the problem. (I'm sorry, but I can't give you a reference to this inscription now, as I am simply quoting from memory.)

Incidentally, the tribe of the Italoi belonged to the oldest (i.e. pre-Oscan) Italic layer in Southern Italy, which also included the Oenotrians, the Opicans, the Chones, the Ausonians, and the Sicels. These tribes were mostly overrun by Oscan-speaking tribes such as the Samnites, Lucanians, Bruttians, and Mamertines. This information, by the way, was listed under the etymology until it fell victim to your spree of vandalism on April 6-7, 2005.

The moral of the story is: If you don't want to be a hopeless amateur, not only do you need a big dictionary, you also have to know how to use it. More importantly, you need to have a very good understanding of the phonology and morphology (both synchronic and diachronic) of the languages involved (whether modern or ancient, well attested or barely attested). Finally, whether you want to pontificate on ancient Indo-European etymology or discuss poorly attested ancient Indo-European languages such as Dacian or Paeonian, you need a very solid foundation in Indo-European linguistics, something that requires 10-15 years of very hard work, which, just based on what you write, I don't believe you have done. OK, now I can go back to my wine. Pasquale 19:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's nice: but the situation is this: despite the epigraphic evidence, the *wet etymology of Italia, Italus, etc., is still predominant over the other view which considers the etymology as unrelated to the Greek word Italos (='bull', and yes, I know about its rare status, but nevertheless this word is attested: there are many ancient Greek words that have been preserved only in glosses: they are almost all nevertheless still considered as words, and I can go into detail about this if you please) and/or unrelated to Oscan Viteliu, and which considers it to be of unknown origin and unknown etymology. Why? Because many consider it to be too much of a coincidence (this is not just "my opinion"). And I also take note of the fact that it takes you days to respond which shows you didn't know most of this from the beginning, as you should have, but instead you are going back and feverishly researching the etymology now. As for me, I knew about the "anti-etymology" which is not even an etymology, because it simply suggests that the name may be pre-Indo-European, of unknown etymology. And the previous text (whoever wrote it) was still wrong in suggesting that the *wet etymology has been abandoned by the consensus---it hasn't. Decius 21:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want to be a hopeless amateur, you should research these things beforehand. Decius 21:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious that you didn't know about that ancient Greek word at all before it was brought to your attention, or else you would have responded sooner on that topic. So, don't try to pose on the internet and portray yourself as something that you are not. Decius 22:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not that I give a hoot about your opinions, but in fact what happens is that I actually have a day job, and a very time-consuming one at that. Also, I did not have access to the Internet over the weekend, which is why I only got back to you on Monday. So, "feverishly researching" my foot! It is true that I did not recall that gloss from Hesychius and Timaeus, but so what? The point is not being able to repeat everything everyone has said, the point is having the wherewithal to independently evaluate an etymology, no matter how old or established, which requires an understanding of the linguistic facts that you obviously don't have, as your writings make abundantly clear. As for me, I practiced linguistics at the highest academic levels for 20 years (15 at Harvard and 5 at the University of Rome), but I don't have to prove my academic credentials to every little impertinent dilettante that comes around. Pasquale 01:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only thing you have exposed here is your own blunders. You have not independently verified anything concerning this situation. The only thing you should be concerned with here is establishing that the consensus etymology has shifted towards the "of unknown etymology" proponents. And even in that case, that would only show consensus (if such a consensus exists), and it wouldn't show that the hypothesis is correct. So either way, this discussion is over with. Decius 02:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, I will try again. The problem with the traditional etymology, as presented in Liddell & Scott and your other sources, is that it reflects scholarship that is more than a century old and basically repeats what was said by ancient writers, but does not stand up very well to modern scholarship. I had simply noted those reservations in my contributions of 27 Aug 2004 and 30 Aug 2004 (without, however, deleting, any of the preexistent information -- even that silly reference to 'veal' -- according to Wikipedia etiquette, as I understand it), contributions which you vandalized on 6-7 Apr 2005. But I had not actually come up with those reservations myself. They were organically presented at a Harvard workshop for Indo-Europeanists in the mid-seventies by none other than Prof. Calvert Watkins, one of the world's leading Indo-Europeanists. That was thirty years ago and I was quoting from memory. But thankfully now we have Prof. Decius who knows better than anyone else and can determine when the discussion is over with in all matters linguistic. Pasquale 16:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is not for individuals to argue about which etymology should be represented more: that issue is settled simply by which one is predominant. The traditional etymology is still leading the race, and it also has the advantage of not involving an unlikely coincidence. This link here is not intended as "my reference", but to show that the traditional etymology is given on current websites that are in touch with current scholarship: [2] (and this link is just one out of many). And the discussion is not about "all matters linguistic", it's about this one etymology of Italy. Contrary to what you say, the previous text was misrepresenting the current view, and it did not properly discuss the traditional etymology---Viteliu was barely discussed, Greek italos was not discussed, et cetera. Those old Italic texts you cite do not disprove the traditional etymology, and there is no piece of evidence yet uncovered which disproves it. If you want to continue with this, then feel free. Decius 21:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UT ................HA HA HA. this sounds like a greek comedy..any way just to add my two cents ..WE greeks/hellenes...refer to a young bull as a VODI. we CALL a MATRURE BULL..a TAUVROS..i think you can see an assimilation ..with in..the young calf.VITELIU.. i think what many academics as you all are is that..the true meanings of words get lost in antiquity.you have to see past that to understand how the etymology of a word begun some times! al though not academic or factiaul...you have to use you imagination to put things toghther other wise .we can only argue . the point..not very productive that way. and yes the calf was sacred to the italians ...but it was more sacred to the egyptians where the ANCIENT ANK SYMBOL represents the bulls penis and the WOMB OF woman.. the beinging of LIFE IT SELF ... think about it we do swim in blood..and if any italian is offended by being named after a bull..think about this...many a name was coined from the work you did...other wise we may be calling the italians etruscans today!.... from a mad greek to ...ha ha ha ha..

Italy < Ita-la = "The land of little forests" Ita / Ida = forest, pine (in Luwian) like Ithaca(Ithake) & Mount Ida

"The real" Italy (Italia) was Calabria! (We must not forget this!) Böri (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

On its derivation from Luwian, cite? — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Jordan

Jordan < Is it from a Semitic word? Please look at Iardanos! arda(in Luwian) = "river" , -ana(in Luwian)= "the land of" Böri (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lesotho

The etymology given here – means "dark skinned" – does not match that in the Lesotho article – people who speak Sotho. I don't know which would be correct – or both?AlexOUK 09:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ceteris paribus, depends on which one has reliable cites and which one is linked to a facebook page. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Macedonia

Macedonia < Makadanawa? Ma = "The mother goddess" Böri (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Malawi

I'm adding the story of the name Malawi taken directly from interviews with President and country founder Hastings Banda. It's unclear whether the name "Maravi" he saw in Bororo country on a French map was really Lake Nyasa where Malawi now is. But he liked it and his wish was law, more or less. the interview is on the web at http://www.greatepicbooks.com/epics/october2000.html

Massachusetts

I think that i should have more of a choice with dict

Hm? Anyway, irrelevant. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Mongolia

There was no reason to add "named after the mongols" for mongolia – you might as well add the same such line for all the other entries. -Tridesh

The Monghol tribe was just one tribe in Ancient Mongolia, so it's the same kind of generalisation as in "Nicaragua" for example. Not obvious.- Junesun 08:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

I have a degree in history – Mongols are Mongols are Mongolians. No need to refer back to obscure tribes, everyone in the country speaks the same language.

Not true. Only about 90% of today's population speak Mongolian (including those who learnt it as a second language). Besides that wasn't the case when Mongolia got its name – in the 13th century, when Genghis Khan united the Mongolian tribes (I'll use "Mongolian" to refer to inhabitants of Mongolia and "Monghols" to Genghis Khan's tribe). Genghis Khan named all of his empire after his tribe, although there were hundreds of other tribes even in the area that is now called "Mongolia". You're committing a dangerous mistake by assuming that the name which nowadays refers to all those living in Mongolia meant the same people earlier. The meaning of words changes.

For a different example: you could say that the name "Germany" means "land of the Germans", ignoring the fact that at the time it was coined ("Germania" by the Romans), there was no such thing as "Germans", there were hundreds of tribes like Cheruscans, Langobards, Vandals, Albians just to name a few and they couldn't even be put into a category like "Germans" because they fought against each other and some allied with Rome while others fought the Romans and they had different cultures. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.67.250 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think ill just as "Britain – land of the British" and Italy "land of the Italians", and "Upper Volta" land of the "Upper Voltans" – then everyone will think sooooo much of the list. THe difference between Mongolia and Nicaragua is that not many people realize that the Nicarao were a native people and most wouldnt have any idea what the etymology is. – Tridesch 08:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

As for the British, Italians and 'Upper Voltans': see above. To me, most of the explanations on this list are obvious. To other people, they might not. Some people might think "Côte d'Ivoire"(ivory coast) has a self-explaining etymology, others might not. Some might know about the relation of "Zambia" and the river "Zambesi", or the Nicaraos and Nicaragua, others might not. How many people, do you estimate, know that Genghis Khan was nearly killed in disputes with MONGOLIAN tribes who hated the MONGOLS (to which he belonged) before he could set out to conquer the known world? - Junesun 16:25 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

90% mongolian – oh puh-lease. Present day mongolia is the inheritor of the legacy of the mongol empire.

That s a KNOWN fact.

Also, at times, when the ancient romans referred to Germania (from the germanic root by the way "Spear men" they werent referring unknown groups which we cannot trace into modern times. Youre argument is empty. How many frnch men do you think fought against other frenchmen during the 100 years war before the realm was united – does it make the etymollogy of the current country name other than what it is? Anyone else, please feel free to chime in here – this guy is totally wrong. Tridesch

Montenegro

The Montenegro item has 143 words and contains what seems like an editorial?? Trimming is needed. --Menchi 01:59 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We are told that Montenegro was named by the Venetians, and then that "Montenegro" isn't Italian. What is it, Chinese? Last time I was in Venice they spoke Italian there. Adam 14:51, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It should be "Monte nero" in Italian. It could be in an Italian dialect or a local Romance (maybe Dalmatian or some old Romanian dialect). Bogdan | Talk 16:44, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nowadays "negro", as Italian word, is mostly used as an offensive word for black people (like "nigger"), but in the past it was normally used to mean simply "black" (from the latin word "niger", which means "black" as well). So I think "Monte negro" is even more likely to be an Italian word than "Monte nero" which looks more a modern expression.

Montenegro – Venetian is a recognized historical language – you can find dictionaries. The language has dissappeared under pressure from the highly related (Tuscan) Italian. But then Bogdan never new that – not surprising. Tridesch

I am sick of Bogdans continuous vandalism. – I didnt create this page knowing it would be taken over by the Romanian neo-fascist movement. He puts people on Hard-Block from posting anything if they post anything related to Romanian history that he doesnt like. Tridesch

Tridesch, insulting someone is not a good way of solving conflicts. If you don't agree with something I wrote, simply modify it, but explain the reasons why you did it in the talk page.

And why do you think I am a neo-fascist ? Bogdan | Talk 10:44, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sure. But they used to speak Venetian, a starkly distinct Italian dialect. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Naples

I added the name Naples,to represent the continental south italy.Would be nice if you don't remove it.Just correct it,if you want ;-)--87.3.155.192 (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no real reason to nix it. You just need to link it to Kingdom of Naples.

Nauru

The etymology given For nauru cant possibly be correct. I mean its one thing for some silly travel sight to tell a joke about the name Nauru matching the word for laughter in Finnish, but come on... -- User:tridesh

Nihon

Nihon was correct the first time. Nippon is a sinisation of the original. -Tridesh

Nohon?

Nohon or Nihon?

Nohon – almost certainly a typo for Nihon. This probably should be put under the etymology of the English name "Japan" (which I understand comes from the Chinese name for the islands...)

Oman

in Arabic "umman" means great sea, and the Turks call Oman as "Umman"... but Oman < umman? Böri (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Palestine

I have removed the claim that the name Philistine is first attested as Egyptian P-r-s-t and that this was a name of one of the Sea Peoples. All this is compound conjecture. That the name P-r-s-t refers to Philistines is one POV, others are that it refers to Perizzites or to Persians. The claim that the Philistines were part of the Sea Peoples is one POV, one based on speculation at the time of discovery of the Minoan civilization that Caphtor is Crete which has since fallen into disfavour as it contradicts the traditional sources that place Caphtor at Damietta in Egypt as well as archaeological evidence linking Philistines with an Egyptian origin. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What traditional sources (I assume you mean Hebrew ones) place Caphtor in Egypt? I've heard of plentiful archeological evidence linking the Philistines with Greece, but what archeological evidence links them with Egypt? – Mustafaa 20:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Genesis speaks of the Philistines being an offshoot of the Egyptians, so does the historian Josephus. Benjamin of Tudela, a 12th century traveler mentions that Damietta is Caphtor. Similarity with the fuller name Iy-Caphtor and "Egypt" as well as between Caphtor and the region name Coptus have been noted. Philistine sarcophagi have been found in Deir el Balah, Beth Shean, Lachish and Tel el-Fara, similar to Egyptian sarcophagi. Philistine temple design resembles those of Egypt. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But Iy-Caphtor means "Island of Caphtor", right? – and Benjamin of Tudela seems a rather late source to be quoting. However, certainly one can see Egyptian influence in Philistine culture. – Mustafaa 23:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point about Benjamin of Tudela is that he states it as a matter of fact suggesting that as late as the 12th century, the location of Caphtor was not considered some unknown mystery but was known to be Damietta. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, the name of Egypt comes from a rather different source than Iy-Caphtor – as I think the page already points out... – Mustafaa 23:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One popular translation if Iy is island of but in Biblical Hebrew it might not necessarily mean island, the translation island is also questioned when this word occurs in other verses. But that is beside the point, if Iy-Caphtor is derived from Egyptian Hikuptah (from whence Greek Aegyptus) its not really the Hebrew word Iy. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough – cases of folk etymology certainly are not unknown. But the similarity between Caphtor and Egyptian keftiu seems more suggestive, especially since postvocalic r is normally deleted in Middle Egyptian. – Mustafaa 01:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that Herodotus and others called it Syria Palaestina – this is the Latin name after 135 AD. Herodotus (who wrote in Greek) referred to the coast as Philistine Syria, i.e. he considered it part of the vast region he called Syria and distinguished the coastal part by the adjective Philistine, without really having a separate name. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In Greek, you'll find, "Philistine Syria" is Syria Palaistina. That's unquestionably where the Latin name came from, via Pliny who also used it. – Mustafaa 23:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herodotus speaks of "Palaistinêi Suriêi" in Greek. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A relevant link is [3]. For the record (and for total overkill :), the original quotes are:

(1.105.1): entheuten de êisan ep' Aigupton. kai epeite egenonto en têi Palaistinêi Suriêi*, Psammêtichos spheas Aiguptou basileus antiasas dôroisi te kai litêisi apotrapei to prosôterô mê poreuesthai. "From there they marched against Egypt: and when they were in the part of Syria called Palestine, Psammetichus king of Egypt met them and persuaded them with gifts and prayers to come no further."

(2.104.3) Phoinikes de kai Suroi hoi en têi Palaistinêi kai autoi homologeousi par' Aiguptiôn memathêkenai, translation "The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine acknowledge that they learned the custom from the Egyptians"

(2.106.1) CVI. hai de stêlai tas hista kata tas chôras ho Aiguptou basileus Sesôstris, hai men pleunes ouketi phainontai perieousai, en de têi Palaistinêi Suriêi autos hôrôn* eousas kai ta grammata ta eirêmena eneonta kai gunaikos aidoia. "As to the pillars that Sesostris, king of Egypt, set up in the countries, most of them are no longer to be seen. But I myself saw them in the Palestine district of Syria, with the aforesaid writing and the women's private parts on them."

(3.5.1) mounêi de tautêi eisi phanerai esbolai es Aigupton. apo gar Phoinikês mechri ourôn tôn Kadutios polios esti Surôn tôn Palaistinôn kaleomenôn. "Now the only apparent way of entry into Egypt is this. The road runs from Phoenicia as far as the borders of the city of Cadytis,1 which belongs to the so-called Syrians of Palestine."

(3.91.1) . apo de Posidêiou polios, tên Amphilochos ho Amphiareô oikise ep' ouroisi toisi Kilikôn te kai Surôn, arxamenos apo tautês mechri Aiguptou, plên moirês tês Arabiôn tauta gar ên atelea, pentêkonta kai triêkosia talanta phoros ên. esti de en tôi nomôi toutôi Phoinikê te pasa kai Suriê hê Palaistinê kaleomenê kai Kupros: nomos* pemptos houtos. "The fifth province was the country (except the part belonging to the Arabians, which paid no tribute) between Posideion, a city founded on the Cilician and Syrian border by Amphilochus son of Amphiaraus, and Egypt; this paid three hundred and fifty talents; in this province was all Phoenicia, and the part of Syria called Palestine, and Cyprus."

(4.39.2) mechri men nun Phoinikês apo Perseôn chôros platus kai pollos esti: to de apo Phoinikês parêkei dia têsde* tês thalassês hê aktê hautê para te Suriên tên Palaistinên kai Aigupton, es tên teleutai*: en têi ethnea esti tria* mouna. "Now from the Persian country to Phoenicia there is a wide and vast tract of land; and from Phoenicia this peninsula runs beside our sea by way of the Syrian Palestine and Egypt, which is at the end of it; in this peninsula there are just three nations."

(7.89.1) tôn de triêreôn* arithmos men egeneto hepta kai diêkosiai kai chiliai, pareichonto de autas hoide, Phoinikes* men sun Suroisi* toisi en têi Palaistinêi* triêkosias*, hôde eskeuasmenoi*: peri men têisi kephalêisi kuneas eichon anchotatô pepoiêmenas tropon ton Hellênikon, endedukotes de thôrêkas lineous*, aspidas* de itus ouk echousas* eichon kai akontia. [2] houtoi** de hoi Phoinikes to palaion oikeon, hôs autoi legousi, epi têi Eruthrêi thalassêi*, entheuten de huperbantes tês Suriês oikeousi to para thalassan: tês de Suriês touto to chôrion kai to mechri Aiguptou pan Palaistinê kaleetai. "The number of the triremes was twelve hundred and seven, and they were furnished by the following: the Phoenicians with the Syrians of Palestine furnished three hundred; for their equipment, they had on their heads helmets very close to the Greek in style; they wore linen breastplates, and carried shields without rims, and javelins. [2] These Phoenicians formerly dwelt, as they themselves say, by the Red Sea; they crossed from there and now inhabit the seacoast of Syria. This part of Syria as far as Egypt is all called Palestine."

It seems, actually, that I was wrong. He didn't talk about "Syria Palaistina", but rather about a part of Syria (Suriê) called "Palaistinê". I'll update it accordingly. – Mustafaa 01:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is overkill :) Kuratowski's Ghost 01:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The main reason that there is confusion about the earliest usage of the name Palestine is that in English there are two distinct words: Philistia and Palestine. Philistia is always used for the region (with vaguely defined borders) that contains at least the coastal area of the Philistines. Palestine is always used for the region (again with vaguely defined borders) that contains at least the former Roman province of Judaea. Similarly in Hebrew there are two words Peleshet and Palestina used in this way. English "Philistia" comes from Latin Philisthea which comes from Greek Philisthem which is one Greek translation of original Hebrew Peleshet. English "Palestine" (and Hebrew "Palestina") comes from the Latin "(Syria) Palaestina" used for Judaea after 135 AD. BUT this Latin name Palaestina comes ultimately from Herodotus' "Palaistinê" which is another Greek translation of Peleshet. So Greek "Palaistinê" can corresponds to either English Philistia and English Palestine. When Herodotus uses it corresponds to English Philistia but is the origin of the later Latin Palaestina. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, Kuratowski's Ghost is way off the mark here. What he refers to as "the claim that the name Philistine is first attested as Egyptian P-r-s-t and that this was a name of one of the Sea Peoples" is in fact now the consensus view among historians of the Sea Peoples, as is the view that they originated from the Aegean Sea. While, of course, this is not definitely proven (as nearly everything having to do with the Sea Peoples), for a contributor to remove what is clearly the majority-held view, simply because he personally supports an alternative theory, is completely beyond the pale! Since the Philistines were already in Palestine when the Hebrews settled there, it is understandable that the latter thought the former were autochthonous, when in fact they were not. Pasquale 19:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't support an alternative theory, I have no strong opinion about who the P-r-s-t were and whether the Philistines were Minoan or Egyptian or Cypriot (Cyprus is yet another opinion about Caphtor) or Anatolian. BTW the Hebrew tradition was that there were two different people in Philistia, the Avvites who were replaced by people from Caphtor. From what I have read the equation of P-r-s-t with Philistine is pure conjecture just like the equation of Pelasgian with Philistine. Speculation about it belongs in the article on Philistines not stated as a matter of fact in this article. I am a mathematician and the way historians and archaeologists decide on things by "consensus" is annoying to the extreme for someone used to an academic discipline that requires rigorous proof of every claim :) Kuratowski's Ghost 21:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I beg to disagree, Ghost. As a mathematician, you may have a somewhat incorrect understanding of how social scientists proceed. While a few may take excessive liberties (and will be stigmatized for it), most adhere to a set of stringent scientific rules, in any case as stringent as their particular discipline allows. Consider, for example, the Taxonomy of living species and how that's evolved over time, most recently thanks to DNA comparisons; see also Cladistics, Phylogenetic tree, and the history of hominoid taxonomy. Prehistorians, archeologists, and historical linguists may not have the equivalent of DNA comparisons yet, but that does not mean their approach is not scientific. Of course, it will always be hard to prove something in the same way you prove a mathematical theorem. But there are working hypotheses, widely accepted views that you work with on a provisional basis, while always keeping an open mind, because the next discovery may well throw your provisional theory up in the air. If this kind of scientific "consensus" annoys you, I'm sorry, but you might as well then stick to mathematics and leave the social sciences to us. Pasquale 19:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dont think this list should be used in a political manner. Palestine is on the list even though the language of this page, English, is not the official language of any country recognizing a sovereign Palestinian state – what's more, no country on earth recognizes a sovereign Palestinian geographic entity. Fine – put Palestine in if youre going to be that way, but then I submit that you may have to contemplate adding all the planet's recognized sovereign territories. There are about 45 of them which are not currently on the list.

20 Greek recognized "Sovereign" monastic states of Mount Athos (albeit with Greece 'administering' the combined territory include: Chelandari, Zographou, Vatopedi, Pantokrator, Stavronitika, Koutloumousiou, Iverion, Philoheou, Esphigmenou, Karakalou, Great Lavra, Saint Paul, Dionysiou, Gregoriou, Simonopetra, Xeropotamou, Panteleimon, Xenophontos, Docheiariou, and Konstamonitou Tridesch

22 "Sovereign" Swiss cantons: Bern , Valais, Vaud, Ticino, Sankt Gallen, Zurich, Freiburg, Luzern, Aargau , Uri, Thurgau , Schwyz , Jura , Neuchatel , Solothurn, Unterwalden , Glarus , Basel, Appenzell, Schaffhausen, Geneva , and Zug Tridesch

It has been noted that certain the channel islands and lundy are feudal possessions of the English crown but may have inherent sovereignty. Tridesch

Portugal

I'm not sure about Portugal coming (in part) from "the Greek cale, meaning beautiful) I've always read that it comes from the Latin portus cale, meaning warm harbor, because the ports along its coast were free of ice year round.

This world is full of myths; even a myth that Portugal is a rebel province of Spain; but in fact, Portugal has almost 900 years old, and Spain 500. That's how we see that the world dont know nothing about us. in fact, Portugal was a rebel County of the extinct kingdom of Leon. Pedro from Portugal

We are told that Portugal comes from Porto cale, the cale being from kali in Greek. There were no Greek colonies on the Atlantic coast so this is highly dubious. Adam 14:51, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It could be "Porto" + "Gaul". There were some Gaulish/Celtic tribes nearby, see Galicia. Bogdan | Talk 16:44, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Portugal – Greek roots abound in Latin. Check a basic etymological dictionary. Greek was also the most commonly second learned language in Rome. Tridesch

A source on the net, can't remember the site, states that Portugal means "Port of the Gaels". Seeing as the Gaelic are said to have inhabited the Galicia region of Spain and northern Protugal this can be a good assumption.

This same region (Galicia and northern Portugal) was to the Romans known as Gallaecia.

The Greeks called the inhabitants of this area of the Iberian Peninsula, the Gallaeci, which may be where the terms Gael and Gaelic derive from.

So if Portugal doesn't mean Port of the Gaels it may mean Port of the Gallaeci.

You can also compare pre-Roman and Roman maps:

http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Maps/Periods/Roman/Places/Europe/Iberia/1.html

As it was a celtic area you can compare "calle" with the Gaelic word "cala", "caladh", a harbour from the Celtic root “qel”, “qal”(hide).

Qatar

I found some info, but I'm not sure if it counts as a proper etymology.

"In the 5th century BC the Greek historian Herodotus referred to the seafaring Canaanites as the original inhabitants of Qatar. Further, the geographer Ptolemy showed in his map of the Arab World "Qatara" as believed to refer to the Qatari town of "Zubara", which has acquired the fame of being one of the most important trading ports in the Gulf region at the time."

This is from an official Qatari governemnt site. Is it suitable for adding this as it is to the list, or is it to vague on the meaning etc. - sdrawkcab

I'd go with too vague; I don't see how you can even write "Qatara" in Greek. Needs more research, at least. Sadly, the Arabia section of Pliny doesn't seem to be online yet. – Mustafaa 07:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

oh you can write Qatara in Greek. just like you can write "Qur'an". many of you write it Koran, right? you get the point, we write it Katara, and it means curse. http://el.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%B1 i don't know any relation with the Qatar of yours though.150.140.228.253 (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Romania

Romania: A neologism coined after the 19th century unification of Moldavia and Wallachia. (added by User:Tridesch into the article

That is false. Romanians always refered to themselves as "Români" (word used mostly in North) or "Rumâni" (mostly in South). Here's a document from 1521 [4] that writes about "Tara Rumâneasca" (Rumanian Land/Country). Bogdan | Talk 20:12, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

No, YOUR argument is false. Readers should be aware that Bogdan is a 'journalist' born in communist romania who regularly vandalizes pages concerning Romanian history in order to replace the Vlach migration with continuity. Um Bogdan? – has noone told you that all the modern latin roots in Romanian were added from 19th century French dictionaries? (posted by User:Tridesch in January 2004 [5]

Actually Bogdan Giusca is right about that, and by the way Bogdan Giusca is not a journalist, the sociopathically abusive and condescending amateur User:Tridesch (see User talk:Tridesch) confused User:Bogdangiusca with User:Bogdan Stanciu back in 2003. I'm not sure what User:Tridesch meant by his drivel-sentence "has noone [sic] told you that all the modern latin roots in Romanian were added from 19th century French dictionaries?" What Tridesch meant by "all modern Latin roots" is unclear: Tridesch was uneducated, but it appears that he meant to say that Romanians added/reintroduced many Latin words and terms in the 19th century, and that the country name "Romania" was introduced in the 19th century. Bogdan refuted Tridesch's latter claim. As to the former, Romanians did add/introduce many Latin words and terms in the 19th century and some before the 19th century, just as the French introduced new Latin terms into their French language starting from before the 19th century, and the Italians did also etc. Romanians also introduced many French words and terms into their language in the 19th century. This is well-known to virtually all Romanians, and the same thing happened in the Serbian language, in Russian, in English, etc., the difference from Russian, Serbian, English is that Romanian, like Italian, French, and Spanish, is a Latin derived language that later on augmented its inherited Latin vocabulary with re-introduced Latin terms, while English and Russian (etc.) are not Latin derived languages, yet were augmented with Latin borrowings. And most of the new Latin borrowings in Romanian were not from French dictionaries, but from Latin dictionaries using French, Italian, German and Russian Latin borrowings as models. Some terms were taken directly from German, French, Russian (which by the 19th century had many Latin borrowings) etc. 76.208.181.51 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Tridesch by the way left Wikipedia in January 2004, probably in order to seek treatment for the sociopathy evident on User:Tridesch's talk page, see User talk:Tridesch for yourself. User:Tridesch of Syracuse, New York ranks as one of the most horrible and uncivilized animal-like Wikipedians of the past decade, and he was a jackass amateur to boot, with a low grasp of the fields he edited in. User:Bogdangiusca on the other hand is a Wikipedia administrator on this English language Wikipedia since 2006 with a clean block log (Bogdan Giusca has never been blocked since he joined Wikipedia in 2003) and has a clean and respected Wiki reputation. I used to be Bogdan's friend at Wiki. User:Bogdan Stanciu, the journalist, is a totally different person, presumably older than Bogdan Giusca. Bogdan Giusca was born in "communist Romania", but he is so young that he would have attended junior high and high school completely in the mid to late 1990s in Iliescu's post-communist Romania, and Bogdan attended university in the 2000s. But User:Tridesch was a lamebrain and a troll, all he could do was attack a Romanian on sight, trying to flash around his American residence as if that means something---I'm American myself and I know that unless User:Tridesch excelled in the subjects he was discussing (he did not, Tridesch edited like a lamebrained jackass), the only thing User:Tridesch exposed is that he was a lamebrain. User:Bogdangiusca and User:Bogdan Stanciu are only two of the many Wikipedians that he attacked (for which by the way he was never reported or blocked, it was the early days of Wikipedia when apparently editors weren't quick to report or block), so yes he attacked two Romanians and many other Wikipedians including several other American Wikipedians back in 2003. 76.208.181.51 (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

: The ethnomyn reflects the common theme of descent from the ancient Roman legions installed in Dacia.

The common Roman legions theme was developed during the 'romantic nationalism era' of 19th century. The Romanians called this way long before that. Bogdan | Talk 16:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Russia

Please don't hurry here. It is an apparent blunder to derive "Russia" from "Kievan Rus'". Let me dig a bit. Mikkalai 01:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn't, although it's worth noting pro-Slav revisionism given WP:RELIABLESOURCEs. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rwanda

From the name of the people Vanyaruanda, a word of unknown origin, but obviously cognate to the name of Rwanda.

I can't find that anywhere on the web, even searching "Vanyaruanda" on Google yields only Wikipedias of different languages or sites that copy Wikipedia... -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 01:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Elfin, this is probably either a typo or a variant spelling of "Banyarwanda", which you can google and get 15,000 hits (and see also Banyarwanda). The prefix ba- identifies the people, while the prefix ki- identifies the language. And the language of Rwanda is called Kinyarwanda. I am not sure about the function of the morpheme -nya-, but it is also seen in the ethnonym Banyamulenge (who by the way also speak Kinyarwanda). Pasquale (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Samoa

Does anyone else think the Moa link on the Samoa entry is drawing a very long bow? Moriori 21:30, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

After googling for a while, I see it was more than a long bow. Inaccurate, so I will delete link. The def is suspect too. Moriori 23:32, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

A prank removed from the article:

Samoa: "Sacred Moa Preserve", after the Moa, a native hen-like fowl. In legend a sacred hen enclosure "Sa-moa" was created by King Lu. After battles to protect it, he had a son he named "Samoa" who became the progenitor of the Moa clan, who came to dominate the island of Manu'a and the whole Samoan area.

There was no King Lu with son Samoa. Mikkalai 00:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It may not be a prank, but misinterprertation. See http://www.samoa.co.uk/creation.html I don't know enough about this to fix it. Moriori 03:16, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, where is the Big Chicken Moa on this page? A prank is a prank is a prank, even if it is based on a native legend.

That was the reason Tagaloa, the messenger, went down to ask Night and Day in the first Heavens (if they had any children).

Then answered Night and Day, "Come now; there remain four boys that are not yet appointed, Manu'a, Samoa, the Sun, and the Moon."

These are the boys that originated the names of Samoa and Manu'a; these two were the children of Night and Day. The name of the one is Sa-tia-i-le-moa, 'obstructed by the chest'; the meaning of which is this:- the boy seemed as if he would not be born, because he was caught by the chest; therefore it was he was called Sa-tia-i-le-moa; that is, Samoa; the other was born with one side abraded ('manu'a' ); then said Day to Night "Why is this child so greatly wounded?" therefore the child was called `Manu'a-tele'.

Mikkalai 10:05, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, it was not necessarily a prank. The person who posted the original definition way well have been genuine. See http://www.janesoceania.com/samoa_origin/ . Moriori 18:51, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

That's the idea of a good prank: to make people believe. The article you pointed out says it very mildly: "are fantastic and very amusing". I am a simple man an read it: "prank". And the version that was put into here sounded like a mock of all these legends concocted to amuse tourists.

I suggest the following entry: "Origin unknown. Numerous legends differ greatly and are not very convincing." Mikkalai 22:59, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Samoa – Ive no idea as to whether the Samoa entry was correct. I pulled the info off a German-language website. I figured it had a good chance of being correct because Germany colonized Samoa.

Anyway, even if false, you shouldnt just let the Samoa space remain blank.

You can express the doubts you have. Tridesch

I have e-mailed the Samoan govt asking whether there is a policy re origin of the name Samoa (and what is is). Will advise if I have any joy. Cheers Mikkalai. Moriori 22:50, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Not that gov't politicians are (necessarily) WP:RELIABLESOURCEs, but good show. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

"The etymology of the term "Arab" or "Arabian" links closely with that of the place-name "Arabia". The root of the word has many meanings in Semitic languages, including "west / sunset", "desert", "mingle", "merchant", "raven" and "comprehensible". This is incorrect. The root 'RB doesn't have anything to do with the root GHRB.

Weird. This Saudi Arabia thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.58.59 (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone sees this, could they clarify that? — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Seborga?

What is Seborga?

Seborga – a tiny Italian principality. Not a UN nation, but claims its own sovereignty and mints its own currency...

you had no right to delete Seborga, since it is officially recognised by Monaco. -Tridesh

I didn't delete anything related to Nihon/Nippon, Yemen, Seborga or Hungary, see the page history. My IQ is quite high, thank you. - Junesun 08:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

The village of seborga has declared its independance – laughable had not Monaco GRANTED it official recognition. Tridesch

Sudan

Sudan doesnt mean "blacks" – it means, "land of the blacks". -Tridesh

You're wrong about Sudan: the Arabic words "bilad-as-sudan" means "land of the blacks", whereas the word "sudan" just means "blacks". "Bilad-as" is a generic thing that is put in front of most Arabic country names when you build them from the name of the inhabitants, similar to the Chinese "guo2" (国), although that is put AFTER the name.- Junesun 08:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

As for Sudan, etymologically the name (as is the case with say Australia) resulted from, as you said, the contaction of a whole phrase "Bilad as Sudan" – youre not helping anyone, and in fact, youre misleading them by leaving out reference to it. Is the toponym derived REALLY from "Blacks" or does it mean ETYMOLOGICALLY – "land of the blacks" – This is an etymological list! Youre etymology for Iran gives the wrong impression, when it removes ENTIRELY any reference to the fact that Arya means "noble" but includes some trivial/irrelevant crap about solar bodies – one can imagine that they may have very well referred to themselves as ? "sons of the sun" whatever name they schose for their country – Am i wrong here?  – Tridesch 08:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

As you can see in the version of the page I submitted after reading your first comments, I explained the Sudan / Bilad-as-Sudan and Aryan difference. From a linguist's point of view it is WRONG to say that "Sudan" means "land of the blacks". The "land of" part got completely lost in the English name. The ones not familiar with the Arabic language would have a hell of a hard time trying to see "land of" in the word "Sudan", that might lead to wrong conclusions about the Arabic language.- Junesun 16:25 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

As i said this is an etymological list – is is incorrect for a linguist to add an entry for sudan that says "blacks" and not "land of the blacks", since the concern isnt word to word translation, but historical development of the name. Tridesch

Syria

I have removed the conjecture that the name comes from the Arabic name for Tyre, as-Sur. The name Syria is attested in Herodotus literally thousands of years before the arrival of the Arabs in the region of Tyre and before the development of the classical Arabic language so the conjecture is clearly false.

Doubly so since Syria's name in Classical Arabic is ash-Sham. – Mustafaa 20:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that the most widely held theory among linguists is that the Greek name for Aram, i.e. Syria, is indeed connected with the name of the city of Tyre (therefore meaning "the territory of Tyre"). The difference between "S" and "T" in the two Greek names can be explained as different adaptations to Greek of the original Semitic sounds, made at different historical times and possibly from different Semitic languages or dialects. Pasquale 19:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is true that later Greek forms of the name of Tyre are known which feature s – due to the sound change in Phoenician from Proto-Semitic th. to s. – which would tend to support your point. – Mustafaa 20:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This would be the loss of the plosive tsadi (perhaps like Arabic Daad) with replacement by the fricative tsadi (like Arabic Saad). The plosive tsadi was still in use at the time of the Septuagint which is much later than the first mention of Syria in Herodotus. Herodotus uses both Syria and Assyria (the former as a wider region than the latter) while noting that "Syrians" was a just a Greek way of saying "Assyrians". Kuratowski's Ghost 23:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In Hebrew, that is true; Phoenician, however, underwent the change much earlier (which is usually thought to be the reason they abbreviated the Semitic alphabet to only 22 consonants from an originally rather higher number.) – Mustafaa 23:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan

Taiwan is listed as a country here. As with other articles that relate to countries, Taiwan may need to be removed from this list because it is not established that Taiwan is a country. Organizations that reguire statehood for membership will not allow Taiwan to join, meaning that Taiwan is not yet a "country". This should be removed to avoid any confusion.--Futureunwritten 03:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Obviously, you have not looked at the entries in this list very carefully. Or, if you have, are implying that, e.g., Åland, Baker Island, Bouvet Island, British Indian Ocean Territory, Catalonia, Christmas Island, Clipperton Island, Cocos Islands, Cymru, Dagestan, and so on and so forth, are "established" countries, but just Taiwan is not? Are you saying that the inclusion of Greenland, Jersey, Isle of Man, Occitania, Palestine, and Svalbard, is not causing any "confusion", but only the inclusion of Taiwan is? Pasquale 19:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am simply listing one case in particular. Obviously, you have not read the above comments made by other users, which clearly point out other "errors". I am merely stating an error that has not been previously mentioned.--Futureunwritten 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. Actually, I had read the comments above. They discuss Canadian provinces vs. German Länder, Seborga, double listings, etc., but they don't really address the definition of "country". It seems to me that that's where the problem lies. The article itself does not offer a definition of "country", which, of course, need not be the same as "independent country" or "United Nations member state", etc. All the article says is: "Countries in italics no longer exist as sovereign political entities." Nothing more. This vagueness has allowed contributors to add Dagestan, Occitania, and Svalbard to the list, and even double entries, such as Cymru and Wales. So, it's hard to say Taiwan does not belong here. That was my point. Pasquale 15:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that the definition of a country is ambiguous, as is this article. Also though, another discrepancy occurs because Taiwan actually refers to the island that the Republic of China currently occupies. There has been some talk as to whether the Republic of China will add Taiwan to its name, but for now nothing is certain. The title of "Taiwan"'s listing is something that I disagree with. The official name of this country/political entity is the "Republic of China", not "Republic of China (Taiwan)". It may be hard to prove that the Republic of China does not belong on this list, but it is much clearer in the case of "Taiwan".--Futureunwritten (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Other way around. Taiwan was previously a country and got persona non gratia'd in favor of the PRC. Regardless, the national gov't's formal and informal names deserve inclusion, but "Formosa" certainly doesn't. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Tajikistan

I've been looking around and have found no less than three seperate and disticnt explanations for the meaning of Tajikistan.

1. from a Turkic root tasi meaning 'Muslim'. The name means 'land of the Tajiks.' (the one on this list)
2. In Persian, taj means "crown" and ik means "head," so tajik means "a person wearing a crown on his head." Tajiks were originally Persians. [6] & [7]
3. Then there's the Tajiks. They take their name from the Sanskrit word tajika "Persian". The Tibetans also call Persia sTag.Dzig (Pronounced "Tajik") but in Tibetan this means "tiger-leopard". This could explain why so many Tibetan legends about their western neighbors feature tiger/leopard combinations. It hardly explains why, in some old Persian epics, the hero wears a leopard-skin cap and a tiger-skin coat. Just to complicate matters further, some say that tajik originally referred to the Tay, who were not Persians at all but Arabs. [8]

They can't all be right. What should the entry under Tajikistan be – all three? None?

The page [9] n makes an interesting point about the Tajik flag featuring a crown. - sdrawkcab

"Tajiks" (or "tazis") is the name given to the attacking Arabs. Later it came to meen the Arabs who were iranizised and settled in the East. See the book Richard Frye: The golden age of Persia.

Don't know what Tajik meant before the coming of the Arabs, though... - DreiPasou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.58.59 (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that work through the confusion, that's great. Otherwise, you include the controversy and cite. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Turkey

Alternativley Türkiye is an arabization of earlier Türkiya (attested) -iya being teh Latin place name suffix -ia Ybgursey 18:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkey <Turkiyye(Arabic) & and also from Turcia(in Latin) Böri (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Greek, but whatevs. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan < from Uzbeg Khan (Özbek Han) "beg" means "the ruler" in Turkish Böri (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam

Vietnam:

(Cognate of the Chinese: 越南), "Beyond the southern border", as referred to by the ancient Chinese, or "South Yue" (variation of Nanyue), after the Yue peoples of ancient southeast China.

The characters given in the article represent the modern (post-1945) name of Vietnam in Chinese. Neither character has the meaning of "border," so the "Beyond the southern border" translation is excessively free. A literal translation gives you nonsense: "more south" "beyond south." In general, the characters that represent country names in Chinese are chosen for phonetic reasons and don't necessarily tell you anything about the word's origin. In ancient times, there were two kingdoms named Viet (越/Yue), Minyue and Nanyue (Nam Viet), and therefore a need to distinguish between them. (An Introduction to Vietology) Kauffner (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner go ahead! You've got source! The Ogre (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain

This article says that the name 'Britain' may come from 'Pretani', meaning, supposedly, 'the painted ones'. There is also a 'citation needed' tag for this. Are you sure you are not confusing this with the tribal name of the Picti, which means 'the painted ones'? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

United States of America

I am fairly certain that America was not named after Amerigo Vespucci. (Why would it be?) A more likely theory is that it is a Latinisation of a [Welsh language|[Welsh]] surname something like ap Meuric (pronounced am Mayrick). It was probably named by some sailors around 1500 who were under contract from this ap Meuric and felt entitled to name the continent on behalf of their patron.

Please tell me if this is untrue/improbable.

PS As extra evidence, ap Meuric has spawned the English surname Meyrick which is pronounced in the exact same way as America without the two as. Gee Eight 20.02 UTC 3 March 2006.

It's untrue. Not improbable, but only because impossible is a different category. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yemen

Deleting the passages in the 'Yemen' entry was uncalled for – the 'lucky' etymology deserves someone writng why its supposed to be lucky. -Tridesh

Yugoslavia

note to the person who put 'Yugoslavia' as a proper entry: all former names go under the modern-day equivelent country with a double-star (**). In this case it goes under Serbia and Montenegro, the 'successor state' to Yugoslavia, containing the former capital Belgrade, retaining the name for a while etc. - sdrawkcab

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is now called Serbia and Montenegro. Note that the term Yugoslavia (see page) was not coined to mean this country, but the country that included the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro and Slovenia! FRY choosed to call itself that way when the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia dissolved in 1990s! So the origin of the name should be listed by itself. Any objections to move it back? --Romanm 14:39, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

actually, you've made a good point. Yugoslavia is different from, say, Transjordan or Dahomey.

It isn't my list, go ahead and move it back.-sdrawkcab

OK, I did. --Romanm 13:57, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of country name etymologies or List of country name English language etymologies?

Is this a List of country name etymologies or a List of country name English language etymologies? After reading the article, it is unclear to me. Kingturtle 16:45 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

See WP:USEENGLISH. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Many false etymologies

For the record, this page is quite silly, and definetly misleading. The etymologies for frex. Finland, are, have been, and will always be higly dubious. There really is no accepted etymology, but an endless plethora of speculations. Just the speculations for "Finland" and "Suomi" would fairly presented be as long as the whole article is currently. I am not saying that this page should go, but it definitely has some issues. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 04:30 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

True. Brewer's Names is more equivocal about most of its place-name etymologies. I tried to correct the article but got reverted (rudely) by the original contributor, user:Junesun, who I suspect typed the whole lot in from a list of unreliable folk etymologies. -- Heron

Anyway, i added that the etymologies for Finland (in eng) and Suomi arent really known. I dont think i reverted it to anything, i just complied w your request to add the element of doubt. This page isnt mine anyway – if you know of an etymology in the list thats just 'folk etymology',then thats what your keyboard is for. -- User:tridesh

Should add what language the etymology was based on

Each of the entry should add what language the etymology was based on. For example, Philippine and Costa Rica was definitely not based on English. 67.117.82.5 23:41, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Coherence with the main articles

I suggest to put into this list only those explanations that are present in the main articles, where someone knowledgeable can verify them. This article is poorly visible and hence and easy prey for pranksters. Mikkalai 23:03, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I looked briefly into a couple counries I know, and immediately found numerous discrepancies. I am going to cross-cut-and-paste, with reference to this page, for consistency. Mikkalai 23:13, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After more thinking, I am inclined to suggest killing this page at all. Unlike many other lists, it does not *organize* data, rather disorganizes it by creating the possibility of divergence: if something is updated, it must be changed in two places. Which of the following pages do we really need? -- List of presidents of states, List of capitals, List of longest rivers by country, List of population sizes, List of countries that have a synonym of 'country' in the country name... Mikkalai

This is useful. We just have to proceed slowly, fight vandals, and ask for cites. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-sovereign territories

Adding all of these non-sovereign territories is the beginning of a slippery slope. Before you know it, someone will try restoring the Provinces of Canada and then who knows, obscure counties in Poland. Tridesch

nope,

those Canadian provinces can go in the subnational toponymy page. Territories/colonies are disctinct from regions/counties/provinces, they are halfway between them and a fully soverign nation. Most are near independent anyway. If anyone wnats to make a slippery slope out of it then their entires will jsut be moved to the proper page.

List almost complete

Unless there are some major outbreaks of wars, the list seems almost complete. While, I'll pat myself on the back for having written most of it, i've done some research on the Germany 'spear men' derevation that indeed makes it look false. Oh well, mea culpa.

On the other hand, I must strongly object to the renewed addition of subnational entities, the so-called "territoties". Its absolutley ridiculous, and i really didnt get the "halfway beteeen" subnational and independent argument. What standard are you using to judge? Who ARE you judge? They either form part of one country's sovereign geo-graphical extent or not. They really should be taken out immediately. We wanted a country name wetymology page, not a country and its subnational territoties page – youre dilluting what the page is about with extraneous nonsense. Why dont you wait until Baker island and all the other "halfway" territories are recognized by a single country as soveeign before adding them? Its really insane. A regular province or state which could seceed whenever its inhabitants are annoyed enough is less of one of your "halfway" territories than some island with no resources and money which would never be able to seceed? Tridesch

I added the territories/colonies, and they ar ebased on those listed in the authoritative CIA world fact book. You seem to view these territories as almost non-entities that shouldn't be on the list. Let's remember the world when it largely carved into colonial empires. Would you then not have included all the African colonies (or anywhere else) as seperate entries? Of course not. They'd get listed – the same applies to all the various colonies that still exist today. Sure, most may be obscure islands or so forth, but it doens't matter. There's a lot of difference bewteen, say, the Caymans and Shropshire.

youre reply doesn actually resond to my point.

The CIA list was apparently WAS NOT (and i dont know what the title of it may have been) a list of sovereign states, such as those THIS list was dedicated to listing.

As far as colonial africa, lets not have you twist the reality of that. A colony or "territory" is a colony or territory", and a sovereign state is a sovereign state. Someone (obviously an idiot at that since the category is very open-ended) has created an etymological list for subnational entities already.

What does the CIA have to do with anything – it has an actual interest in listing subnational entities because it was asked to provide additional insite into geo-politcal questions which arent necessarily sovereignty or recognition-of sovereinty based – we just wanted etymologies of actual countries.

Its really a black and white issue – recognised states versus territories you feel are halfway there.

You are using very very subjective judgements – How bout this? – any province not a under the general law for the majority of administrative divisions. What about adding the District of Columbia to the list next? What about Corsica or Martinique – theyre not really in France and the corsicans are always blowing things up in their independance struggle – Do you think France is going to give up island #1 where one of its great emperor was born or island #2 lying closer to Paris Texas than Paris France where a French Empress was born? Probably Not. Are Navessa and Wake island halfway independent of the US – Hell will have frozen before the US 1 gives up these islands or 2 takes a hands off approach in their administration.

Caymans and Shropshire – what ABOUT those British counties closer to London.

Youll find that several of the ones on Great Britain itself have attempted at one point or another to seceed from Britain over the past several centuries while the Caymans never have.

Even the best political scientists couldnt describe a dividing line between special area and general district the way you presume to. Our measuring stick, the measuring stick used in international interactions among countries is whether the state is recognized.

Whatsmore, if you allow the Caymans someone will soon find reason to add Shropshire. tridesch

the situation is like this:

there are two main international toponymy lists on WKPDA – 1. the country one and 2. the subnational one.

The subnational one deals with cities and counties/regions – areas that are a undeniably integral parts of their home country.

now you can't tell me that the Caymans, the Falklands or Gibralter form an integral parts of Britain. Or that Baker Island, Northern Marianas etc. are integral parts of the USA.

They are political areas defined differently from the subnational areas of each country. Corsica, for instance, is more of a county then a territory – subantional page.

How are you defining integral? – any part that couldnt be lost? – Thats silly. International relations, as a most basic presumtion, holds that sovereigties are stable (even when theyre not). I dont know if it makes sense, but I have a backround in accounting, and its the same with corporations – you assume in all financial calculations before dissolution that the company is a going interest, no matter what your hunch concerning the future is. Are you using strict language parsing – if so, and once again, the capital of the US is not a State – how could it form part of the "United States".

Im thinking the word "integral" has no place; that the concept of 'sovereign authority' is more useful. Which government will respond if the Falklands, Caymans, or Gibraltar are ever threatened. Thats right, The United Kingdom will respond – and has. Is Wales a county?, Scotland? What about holding a microscope under each county's constitutional law to decide when, according to your POV, a land has sufficient "home rule" to make it into your list of countries.

Which government was apprehensive about the Faroes possible seceeding in the last decade, but then, when it turned out the Faroes had massively overspent and were de facto bankrupt, had to bail them out – It was Denmark.

The geographical extent of the planet is divided under presiding sovereign authorities, each comprising holding legal imperium – the Caymans, Gibraltar, and Falkland are NOT among them. In fact, I know that at least, in Gibraltar and Falkland, the populations have signalled that they have no desire to removed from the British sovereignty.

A country is either independent or not.

Your expanded list is full of implied value jugments based on personal conceptions of

you said "more of a county than a territory", I challenge you to write an extensive explanation of what "more of" means. tridesch

The Country-name etymology list is just that, a list of country names.

I dont know what country your from, but i dont think in colloquial english usage that you could get away with saying "The falklands" are a county.

Continuing presence of sub-national entries

Otherwise im happy with the work done changing my recent input – i think things have been going quite constructively. The only problem is the continued presense of the sub-national entities. Perhabs as you edit, you will notice the wanring concerning the size of the page. It is already over the limit, which wouldnt be such a sticking point if so many of the entries werent even real countries. Tridesch

As for the subnational entities, if any still remain, I agree they should be moved to List of etymologies of country subdivision names. Pasquale 18:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A question about Greece: Etymology of Georgian name for it

The Georgian word for Greece is Saberdzneṭi (საბერძნეთი). Does anyone know the etymology of that word? I asked the same question in the georgian wikipedia but noone answered.--Mik2 21:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You'll probably have better luck there. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary

Are there any pages on Wiktionary like this? This content, as a list, that is, is much more fitting in an encyclopedia than a dictionary, which would have etymologies split up by entry. Satyadasa 13:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Etymology haters are always suggesting that any list dealing with etymology be moved to Wiktionary, because hey, if they don't like/know much about it, why should anyone? Get used to it, but fight it. The value of a list is immeasurable in this regard when compared to some kind of wack categorization method people are always proposing for Wikipedia to Wiktionarie moves --Hraefen 17:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I plan to, but where do I fight it? There is not a place for voting and discussion here as far as I can tell. Satyadasa 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed the 'move to Wikitionary' suggestion. I have over 15 English dictionaries, all of which are the best one can find, and all of them are nearly completely devoid of giving the etymology of placenames (toponymy). To imply this list fits the criteria for a dictionary is then a false one. One of the biggest problem I have with dictionaries is that they all have little information on the origins of placenames. --LibraryLion 23:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion outrageous

Killing this page or any other page is at all outrageous. As a matter of fact, history has been and will be a discussable issue. The beauty about this, especially here, that everyone could make his input. Someone use to say, history is written by the winners, therefore, I do believe like so many other, the discussion should not be a problem at all.

As many discussion tend to prove their opinion, an opinion is not a fact. Words in superfacial life are transmitted accorss without any prove of evidence. Many importnat historical documents were named after who started creating the document and most of the cases not about who wrote these documents. Most of the inventions were intiated by people whom we do not know their names, yet, it has been named for who last came up with the working prototype. Hassan El-Meligy 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies

People, please remember Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. If you don't know what these refer to, please click through and read them. The histories of the names of, e.g., Portugal and England are well documented and not in need of revision, and even if they were in need of revision, Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for suggesting new theories. Also keep in mind that sources like random web sites and travel guides are not exactly the most reliable as guides to name origins. In fact, they're probably the two least reliable types of sources. Sorry if I'm bursting anyone's bubble. — Goueznou, 69.248.116.112 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

UK countries italicized

At the start of the article it says countries that are now non-sovereign entities are in italics. I have altered the UK constituent countries accordingly.

Praise

This article is great Mallerd (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Finnish and Irish

Why are there sometimes translations of these 2 languages mentioned? What purpose does it have? Mallerd (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. — LlywelynII 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

New Discussion about country lists

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-English names

A significant percentage of the text is about the names of countries in languages other than English, such as the Finnish name for Germany. Every country has a name in every language, so this is quite open ended. I recommend limiting the explanations to information directly related to word orgin. Kauffner (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe it makes sense to add these only when they are not cognates (in the linguistic sense) of the English name, and thus have a different etymology (as is the case for the Finnish name for Germany, Saksa). I believe this principle has mostly been tacitly adhered to. Pasquale (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You must not refer to Macedonia as Macedonia

You must not refer to this newborn country with the name "Macedonia" because as you know it not an official name. It is called for now "FYROM" and is in discussion the permanent name of the newnborn country in the United Nation counsil. Macedonia (Greek: Μακεδονία) is a geographical and historical region of Greece in Southern Europe. Macedonia is the largest and second most populous Greek region. It incorporates most of the territories of ancient Macedon, a kingdom ruled by the Argeads whose most celebrated members were Alexander the Great and his father Philip II. Macedonia or Macedon (from Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía) was an ancient kingdom, centered in the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula,[1] bordered by Epirus to the west, Paeonia to the north, the region of Thrace to the east and Thessaly to the south. The rise of Macedon, from a small kingdom at the periphery of Classical Greek affairs, to one which came to dominate the entire Hellenic world, occurred under the reign of Philip II. For a brief period, after the conquests of Alexander the Great, it became the most powerful state in the world, controlling a territory that included the former Persian empire, stretching as far as the Indus River; at that time it inaugurated the Hellenistic period of Ancient Greek civilization. The name Macedonia (Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía) is related to the ancient Greek word μακεδνός (Makednos). It is commonly explained as having originally meant 'a tall one' or 'highlander', possibly descriptive of the people. (For further info go and read the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_%28ancient_kingdom%29) So please deleat the name "Macedonia" and write it correct as "FYROM" otherwise you are commiting a violation of the UN codes. Thank you for your good understanding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seicsip (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have developed a binding consensus guideline on how to refer to the country, outlined at WP:NCMAC. This is based on the policy of using the most common name generally used in English to refer a country, and/or the name that a country chooses to use for itself, no matter if these names are politically acceptable to third parties (see the naming-conflict guideline).

There is a firm consensus that the abbreviation "FYROM" should not be used to refer to the country.

See also WP:ARBMAC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)